[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: application/pgp-signature (was Re: debian 2.3)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:48:36PM +0200, Edwin Martin wrote:
> rob@debianplanet.org wrote:
>  > Attachment: Re debian 2.3.ems
> Yeah, right.
> Do all those Mutt users realize that some readers can't read
> their mail (without opening attachments) and are clobbing their
> attachment folder?
Hmmm, let's see... 
"X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2"
I could have guessed so, since you're talking about an attachment folder.

> Yeah, I know, there is an RFC for encrypted mail. But there is
> also an RFC for HTML-mail which is not allowed on many mailing
> lists.
Difference being that a plain text attachment is still readable by a text
mailer, html mail isn't.

> What's the idea behind it? Now we are certain you really wrote the
> mail? Great. But what about the idea of information avaible for
> everyone?
So isn't the mail at least in your attachment folder then? Can't you read

> Which is more important?
> Or do you want me to use Mutt too? Isn't this totally against Free
> Software and is very Microsoft-like?
> Please tell me, what's you motivation?
As for me personally, I don't sign my mail (anymore) if I send to people who
I know are using windows. I am willing to give in for people who read their
mail on a platform for which only broken mailers are available.

However, I don't give a damn if I am sending mail to a Linux related mailing
list. If people are reading that using crappy mailers they are themselves the
ones to blame. Even if you can't use Linux for some reason (work pc, for
instance, forced to use windoze) then there's plenty of free shell servers
around which enable you to still read email in a UNIX environment.
And no, I don't want you to use mutt if you don't want to, just don't come
around complaining then that it's too hard to read mail on a list where a
large part of the contributors are likely to use mutt.




Attachment: pgpQs5u3vbRBq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: