begin Patrick Kirk quotation: > The question is why do so many otherwise sensible people feel the need > for digital signatures on this list? After all, most of the messages > are not the type of thing that justify it. Depends. Once you have the capability to sign your messages, why not use it all the time? The only point to intentionally _not_ signing a message would seem to be if you wanted to be able to claim later that it was a forgery. > I sympathise with Darryl. Its a nuisance seeing people whose advice you > value but not being able to read their messages. I use Evolution and it > handles GPG. That implies that this problem is easy to solve...I wonder > if there is a plug-in for Outlook Express that would allow it to read > the messages? Think about this more carefully. There are _lots_ of different email clients out there, some with support for verifying digital signatures, some without. Out of all of them, _only_ Outlook Express makes it hard to read signed messages. Why is this? And why would any sensible person put up with such nonsense from their email client when there are several high-quality free email clients available for any of the major platforms, Windows included? Even if I didn't sign this message, Outlook Express wouldn't be able to display it because of my "begin ... quotation:" style of introducing the text I'm replying to. This has been reported to Microsoft as a bug. Their response (check their online Knowledge Base) is that that's just how Outlook Express works and you should tell the people who write to you to write their messages differently. Is this the attitude of a company that cares about conforming to standards or interoperating with standards-compliant software? Craig
Attachment:
pgprUtrssRjF6.pgp
Description: PGP signature