Re: Lack of PGP signatures

[Firebeard <stend@grendel.austin.texas.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> Mark M writes:

MM> On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, David F. Ogren wrote:

DO> In fact, a surprisingly small percentage of messages on the C-punk
DO> list are signed.  This despite the fact that the average
DO> subscriber is at least literate in PGP.
DO> 
DO> Does anybody have any speculation on why this is?
DO> 
DO> Is it because people consider mundane mail unimportant enough to
DO> sign?

MM> This is one reason.  I think that there are several other reasons:

>>  Is it because most mail programs are not PGP aware?

MM> I don't know of any mail programs that can use PGP (I know there
MM> are various interfaces, sendmail wrappers, and other hacks, but I
MM> have yet to see a mailer with an "Encrypt" or "Sign" option.

	Well, I'd say that the emacs/Gnus/mailcrypt combo is PGP aware
- - properly installed, emacs has encrypt, sign, and remail menu items.
I don't use it routinely mainly because I haven't set things up to
propogate my key, so signing articles would be kind of useless.

- -- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited solicitations will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQEVAwUBMdoLmC+2V9GxYWz1AQEwMwf+MKji8AGIfhmLCkANxjzvqc209yLlGEAz
J1LIXuN4+2M7fVPPKmsg6jiUT0k4G0IpXJMF7bbolDYd1PjEAlJiRhlCa7D8GJbz
w21cE2IN8qvJZfzZrncfsOlElOzQXBbi2DpyF1xPzxRvOodwGBT80iVOQR6K0jZO
wficMfAUmItp7y5+W+L+y2rsAaQ+gkhuLAyKwe7C4n7eYW+2Pqh7CvJT/Ob7nlTD
OgrR8i9m6cl6G5JsJAcb/FYcRzyr8+k8BzvryWqiALS0QGwv8lzbbP0HS9171Fu7
vAXcilhV4WNgG7WVBcElIYlgGW5yiaUxq64O91QVQPfrR283c3APTg==
=rVPk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----