On 1999-08-09 02:34:31 -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > 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.
Especially since the RFC defining MIME-multipart (which the MUAs of the most
people complaining can't handle) is from 1992.
I'd really appreciate a short web-page/FAQ somewhere to give those people an
RTFM. Any takers?
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Straße 8, D-28359 Bremen
Voice +49 421 20419-44 / Fax +49 421 20419-10
PGP signature
