Hi Tony, On Monday, June 14, 2004, at 11:49:09 AM PST, you wrote:
> Unfortunately that integration doesn't work. Or maybe I should say I > can't get it to work. That is peculiar, as it does work as expected here. > Encrypting/signing/decryption all work. > When I decrypt PGP wants to save to file. > Real integration would be that it replaces the encrypted text with > the plain text. Without loosing quotes/formatting etc. As I just said above, PGP v8 integration does work as expected here. I have no idea why it's asking you to "save to file". Are you trying to use the PGP options from "PGPtray" when you're using TB!? Or are you actually using the integration? There is a difference in how these work. > BTW as long as it works and handles modern ciphers it doesn't matter > if it's PGP/OpenPGP/GPG/... I use both PGP and GnuPG on my computer. Let's get one thing sorted out here. *Both* PGP and GnuPG are based on the standard called "OpenPGP" (and so is "Hushmail"...with Phil Zimmermann's help). "OpenPGP" is not any sort of separate application beyond PGP and GnuPG...it's merely the standard both are based upon. I wrote: MR>> With a program like PGP, deciding whether or not to use the latest MR>> version is not just about features...it's often about having the MR>> latest security fixes as well. Then you replied: > Tell that on alt.security.pgp :-) > Many there will not agree with you. And many others there will agree with me. :-) I haven't had much time lately to visit alt.security.pgp, but I've been a regular there for several years. There are indeed those who will continue to prefer the old 2.x versions, and again, those who mistrust any version after Phil Zimmermann left NAI (then NAI subsequently sold PGP to "PGP Corporation"), but I feel differently about these issues; as do several other experienced PGP/GnuPG users (including many regular participants at alt.security.pgp). Most end-users of PGP are not capable of evaluating the source code of PGP, so they still have to trust someone...or at least trust the idea that if the source code is available for peer review, "someone" is out there pouring over it, and will let the rest of us know if/when they find any problems (vulnerabilities, backdoors, etc.). The people who formed the new "PGP Corporation" are actually the more trustworthy of the former NAI employees who worked on PGP. I've corresponded over the years with Phil Zimmermann and a few of the current PGP Corporation people (while they were at NAI, and also after they formed "PGP Corporation") enough to feel I can "trust" in their intentions with regards to PGP's trustworthiness. For someone like myself, who couldn't tell the difference between a "backdoor" and a "bathtub" if I were to look at the source code, I need to find other ways to "trust" the code; and I feel I've done all I can to assure myself that it's okay for me to use. If we want to continue this aspect of the discussion, perhaps we should move it to TBOT before the fish start flying. :-) -- Melissa PGP public keys: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]&Body=Please%20send%20keys TB! v2.11.02 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1
pgpuvPYAXC6ee.pgp
Description: PGP signature
________________________________________________ Current version is 2.11.02 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
