Re: Lack of PGP signatures

["Brad Shantz" <bshantz@nwlink.com>]

Mark M. Wrote:
 
> > Is it because most mail programs are not PGP aware?
> 
> I don't know of any mail programs that can use PGP (I know there are various
> interfaces, sendmail wrappers, and other hacks, but I have yet to see a mailer
> with an "Encrypt" or "Sign" option.

Once upon a time last year or the year before, Tim May posted why he 
doesn't use PGP very often.  And I have always stood by that same 
sentiment.  Yes, it is a good encryption product, but it is not 
integrated seamlessly into other applications.  Tim, feel free to 
whack me if you think I'm speaking for you.  If, as cypherpunks, we 
want to spread the use of strong crypto, we need to have a better 
interface than what currently exists on PGP 2.6.2.  

I'm sure Derek and the other guys on PGPlib will make it easier to integrate into 
applications.  Am I just blowing smoke, Mr. Atkins?

PGP is a pain for encrypting or signing e-mail when you have to save 
your message out to a temp file, encrypt it, and load it back in to 
your mail package.

Sure, there are things like Private Idaho, which I use on occasion.  
But, it is still a seperate application that just doesn't fit 
seamlessly into most applications.

In my free time, I have been playing around with add ons for 
Microsoft Exchange.  I've got an OLE 2.0 encryption object that 
embeds nicely into an Exchange message.  I haven't tied it in to PGP 
yet, because I have been waiting for the release of PGPlib.  However, 
that will allow at least some seamless integration.

Brad Shantz
TRIsource Windows Development Services