On Saturday 19 July 2014 03:46:56 Hauke Laging wrote: > I guess this discussion does not go well because of a misunderstanding > or wrong expectations. > > > You and Ingo are talking about "real crypto" issues.
Actually, concerning your proposal, I'm more talking about usability. To encrypt a message using your proposal the sender needs to * write the message, * tell his mail client that he wants to encrypt the message, * come up with and enter the password that should be used for encrypting the message, (-> minor inconvenience) * tell the recipient the password, (-> major inconvenience) * and, finally, send the message. That's three more steps than for sending an unencrypted message. And for one of those steps a completely different communication channel needs to be used. This is so inconvenient that I cannot see this helping our cause. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
