> > It still is broke (at least Outlook Express still does them wrong) > > "[Doing it] wrong" seems to be a matter of opinion at this point. The RFC > Index, which can be found at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/1rfc_index.txt lists > the status of all RFCs. The two that appear to deal with this issue are > still in the proposed state, even after 8 years. It doesn't seem fair to > demonize Outlook and Outlook Express (a popular pastime) for failing to > adopt a proposed standard before it has become official. > > 2015 MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). M. Elkins. October > 1996. (Format: TXT=14223 bytes) (Updated by RFC3156) (Status: > PROPOSED STANDARD) > > 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP. M. Elkins, D. Del Torto, R. Levien, > T. Roessler. August 2001. (Format: TXT=26809 bytes) (Updates RFC2015) > (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
I don't see how this means that Outlook Express is not doing it wrong. It seems to be the mail reader that has the most problems with pgp/gpg. MS is a company that seems to trying to stress that they are all for innovation, yet they are lagging behind here, in a well adopted, and widespread practice. Outlook Express has more problems than just failure to properly handle pgp/gpg. > Incidentally, I read all my email in Outlook Express and find it to be quite > efficient. For those few on the list who sign their emails, I generally > don't read them directly. Usually, if they had something interesting to add, > they are quoted by a later author and I don't miss what they had to say. I sign my email, not because I can, but because I am currently dealing with someone spoofing my email address. Because of this you won't read my messages unless someone else replies to them, as though that is the measure of worth for whatever I might say. -- Michael GnuPG Fingerprint: 4C56 7C23 8BD9 8B39 C4D4 B8F3 42FB 3634 31B5 E963
msg00637/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
