> Supporting the "inline" method is like supporting a grown child. If you > keep supporting him/her, they will never leave home. Stop supporting > them and they will leave. The same is true for "inline" PGP. If support > for it were to cease, it would also.
That was the idea behind the question I posed about Enigmail inline default setting. I understand the replies but it's similar to iOS-devices and flash support. Only since adobe got some pressure from the market, flash is under development and has become a little more effective (and also superfluous, since HTML5 is working just fine). Sometimes if the right parties decide to no longer support an old standard the software that does not support the new (better) standard will die or get improved but I'm not sure I wanna wait for Microsoft to properly program their mail-client. They obviously have enough money to through at that problem but decide not to. >> Of course, I really feel it's better for mailing list traffic to not >> be signed at all, since usually all it gives us is a false sense of >> security. A signature from an unvalidated key belonging to an unknown >> person whom we don't know from Adam doesn't mean much, if anything at >> all. You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some information. Should I still stop signing list mails? So far, I used to do that, because I though people then could check and if my key is signed by someone they know it's a lot of important information, right? all the best, steve
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
