rex [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 1999 at 10:42:36PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > Shao Zhang [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >> But, what about outgoing messages? If I pgp sign a mail to a friend
> >> who is using pine as his MUA. When he views the attachment, pine will
> >> complain it is an unknown attachment and will ask user whether or not
> >> to save it in a file.
> >
> > This is technically a bug in pine. If Mutt repeats this bug, we don't make
> > any progress. People using pine should bug the developers to fix it if
> > they care about it. Until then, if you care about making life easier for
> > your pine-using friends, you can use macros to produce old style messages
> > or find another work around. Bugs need to be worked around and fixed, not
> > supported.
>
> Why do you call a convention that was in use worldwide for several
> years and perfectly functional, a bug?
Bug is maybe not the right word. But it's at least a obsoleted method that
has lots of shortcomings, and IMO continuing to just use such a method is
at least a design bug. Not knowing how to handle modern methods by default
is even more so.
> And what's wrong with backwards compatibility?
It's very easy to keep the old behaviour when you need it using procmail
for incoming mail and macros for outgoing mail. When this is true why
should Mutt include other support for it? All that does is encourage
people to keep doing things the old way instead of the Right Way(tm).
> IMO, Mutt is following an elitist path on this issue
> which is hurting Mutt and the PGP user community. Let's face it, PGP
> is far more important to freedom than Mutt, and intentionally making
> PGP harder to use is a serious mistake.
Who is making PGP harder to use? PGP/MIME is much more flexible and easy
to use than the old way. It makes PGP integration so incredibly seamless.
No more problems with handling text vs. binary message content or the MUA
adding a .sig that breaks the PGP signature or people quoting back the PGP
signature in a reply so that it adds spam and is now a broken signature.
Etc. The people /keeping/ PGP hard to use are the ones refusing to move
forward.
> If there is any bug involved,
> it's Mutt that is buggy for not having the option of being backwards
> compatible with a solidly established worldwide convention.
Mutt+procmail is entirely capable of "being backwards compatible". It
requires you to do some legwork to set it up, but this is a good thing as
it makes you notice that there is a better way and pushes you toward it.
--
Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"Would you fight to the death, for that which you love?
In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?"
-- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_
PGP signature
