[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Using PGP on Insecure Machines
> Yes, some of you PGP fans may say "Sigh!" when you hear that I don't
> particularly like downloading-and-then-decrypting a message only to
> find it saying, "Gee, Tim, isn't this PGP stuff really neat?" Too bad.
>
> Not only do many of us not do all this stuff (have you seen Eric
> Hughes signing his messages? How about John Gilmore?), but some people
> have decided to stop reading e-mail altogether. Donald Knuth, for
> example. A wise man.
I think that's because Knuth is rather famous. I imagine that his
mailbox stays rather full ;)
> I'm happy that you PGP fans are thoroughly infatuated with using PGP
> for everything. Just knock off the clucking and sighing about those
> who don't see it as the end-all and be-all of today's communications.
>
> It reeks of fanaticism.
I don't quite see it that way - it's just easier for me to automatically
sign my messages than not if I choose to set my mailer up that way. If I
want to encrypt, it's just a couple of keystrokes in elm to change my
editor to the appropriate script.
I guess I really don't understand your objections, Tim. True, not every
UA is as easy as elm to change operating parameters, but it works for me.
PGP is easy and not-too-slow to use, and it integrates fairly well into
scripts. I've been using these little scripts for months and while
they're not quite as flexible as I'd like, they do the job - easily,
transparently, and automatically.
--
Ed Carp, N7EKG [email protected], [email protected]
Finger [email protected] for PGP 2.5 public key [email protected]
If you want magic, let go of your armor. Magic is so much stronger than
steel! -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"