On Sun, Jul 05, 1998 at 01:48:58PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > This topic came up a short while ago (I think it was on -policy). > > I have just read the gnupg web pages, at > > http://www.d.shuttle.de/isil/crypt/gnupg.html > > and I don't see any showstoppers. Would anyone with more experience using > gnupg, or cryptography in general, like to check and see if there are any. I see one potentially, but it's not on the gpg web page. Found in /usr/doc/mutt-i/pgp-Notes.txt.gz: Valid values for _all_ variables include "pgp5", "pgp3", "pgp2"; "pgp3" and "pgp5" are equivalent. "g10" has been removed for now: The program has changed it's name to GNUPG; Support for that program will be included soon. Support will be added as soon as the current state of the code turns out to be stable. The issue here is that if we want to convert to it, a number of us also sign messages to the debian-* lists. I'm going to ask that gpg be added back to the next upstream version of mutt because gpg is stable enough, but mailreader support of the program does strike me as important. Pine will have a hack/filter as usual. What about gnus or some of the X-based programs? > Failing that, I suggest that we start the move over from PGP to gnupg as > soon as possible. James Troup has already mentioned that he has a > gpg-keyring working (check the -policy archives for the email address). > > Let's get rid of this piece of non-free, then... As soon as email clients start supporting it, I will be switching myself. I think I agree that the rest of Debian should probably do the same. Um, can't PGP 5.0 and gpg sign messages to eachother and the like? AFAIK they're supposed to be compatible.
Attachment:
pgpf8I2T177w2.pgp
Description: PGP signature