On 29/08/12 01:11, MFPA - expires2...@rocketmail.com wrote:
At the very least, is she stealing from her employer by doing
something other than work in the time her employer has bought
from her?
In a way, yes. So did Jeffrey Wigand.
Peter M.
___
Gnu
Well, it's been a month of, for me, very illuminating reading.
I am not a subscriber, as I prefer to read the list content
only occasionally, on-line, if and when I need it; so every
post I sent had to pass the moderators, for which I would
like to thank them. (This might have also been the reaso
On 28/08/12 01:54, No such Client - nosuchcli...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are restricting heavily the people you share your public key with,
why not simply use a symmetric algorithm, forgetting public key
cryptography completely?
> Uhh. because the benefit of pubkey encryption is still there, mi
On 25/08/12 17:41, Charly Avital - shavi...@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody has to hide, this is not about hiding. [...] when one
> sends or receives an encrypted message, the mere
format of such a communication hollers loud and clear that
the user is protecting his/her communications, not hiding.
T
On 25/08/12 01:59, Faramir - faramir...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, the main trouble probably is people don't feel the need to
protect their privacy. If they don't feel that need, why should they
bother in learning, or even asking about privacy software?
Why "trouble"?
There's a leitmotif in a
On 24/08/12 06:55, Faramir - faramir...@gmail.com wrote:
You are welcome, lets add more comments.
your comments are appreciated.
This group's (C-Z/SUV) thinking on the role of a "group manager"
has evolved. I believe for the better.
GPG is on the other hand so tightly integrated with WOT
On 23/08/12 17:07, Robert J. Hansen - r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
Deploying PKI is nowhere near as big of a problem as convincing people
that PKI adds benefit to their lives.
and
Right now the number one thing killing PKI is the fact nobody wants to
adopt it. If you state, "well, before som
Thank you for your comprehensive comments,
On 22/08/12 03:16, Faramir - faramir...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are wrong about that. All the user needs is a properly
configured portable install of GnuPG (and very likely, an easy to use
GUI, because if Allice can't understand WOT, probably us
On 01/08/12 23:05, Robert J. Hansen - r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
> By itself, GnuPG is useless. [...and more, much more, on steep
learning curves and cargo-cult security].
I happen to agree with most of what was writetn in your lengthy
expose. But you omit one important problem: the program lik
(repatriating to the thread)
On 01/08/12 22:13, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mbgpg2go/tp.html
Useful reference, thank you. It would follow from there
that (as I suspected) gpg 1.4.12 code base is the best
candidate for the fork.
caveat:
You are the judge of what yo
On 31/07/12 19:25, Robert J. Hansen - r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
Set up a trusted introducer/certificate authority and presto, bang,
you're off to the races. When Alice comes on board at the company, the
local authority generates a certificate for her, sets up her
Thunderbird+Enigmail installa
On 31/07/12 09:35, Werner Koch - w...@gnupg.org wrote:
Why do you think gpg2 won't work or does any network access
without user consent?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is unreasonable to expect anybody
to successfully and safely use gpg without understanding the
concepts and mastering the skil
I have been asked to help a small group of individuals
(perhaps hundreds, not thousands) with secure data exchange
(including, but not restricted to e-mail).
Use of full gpg is way beyond their capabilities. I am
wondering if anybody has heard of a simplified version
of gpg; or failing that, I wo
13 matches
Mail list logo
