On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 04:17:49PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote: > > and Outlook users will not be able > > to read the message at all. > > I use Outlook (the one with OfficeXP) and it came up fine, just had an > attachment that some people might be scared of Bah. ;)
> > My recommendation is to publish your key to > > 'keyserver.kjsl.com', which is currently the least broken keyserver. > > Oh goodie, the "least broken" keyserver, that of course means that it > still has issues and is probably broken in some way. This makes me want > to use GPG or PGP every day and trust it :) My public key is available from my web site as well, if only Outlook would show all the headers (or does it now?). Hence the reason why I asked if I should publish it on the keyservers or leave it on my web site. > Seriously, how can you trust anything like this.. There's gotta be a > better way. Most of the ways I've seen people use GPG/PGP is stupid > anyway. Some people sign emails that they know 95% of the people that > recive them will either not bother to confirm the GPG/PGP sig or don't > know how.. Of they use it to encrypt files and put it on a disk only to > put the pass phrase on the disk or email it to people over an unencryped > channel (this happens to me all the time at work). There seems to be a lot of confusion over how to properly sign a GPG/PGP e-mail. Too bad the MUAs (even the open source ones) can't get together and standardize. mutt will verify the signature, but only if I have the key (which I guess I can get) and if it's signed in PGP/MIME format. Those that don't use MIME just shows up to me as a regular e-mail and the signature is not checked. Knowing how touchy M*A people about their products, this is probably intentional. -Mark
msg01973/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature