Re: Inline PGP signatures
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:42:20 +0000
Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Andreas Janssen <andreas.janssen@bigfoot.com> writes:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > And some clients are so broken that they don't even show MIME messages
> > correctly (OE...)
>
> It's worse than that (he's dead, Jim)...
>
> My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are
> "unsafe", and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him
> read the text of the message.
>
> And today I received a bounce from someone's misconfigured Windoze
> system that they'd apparently been receiving debian-user mail on;
> Norton Antivirus had rejected one of my posts to the list because it
> had an "unsafe attachment", ie. the PGP signature.
>
> I can't help wondering if this is some kind of conspiracy to deter
> people from using encryption-based systems...
>
It's actually a mechanism to force people to use M$ approved S/MIME with
3rd party certificates. You can't let the end-user have control of their
own encryption after all, how would you get them to pay the annual licence
fees ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAZJMMuLPldPuWZnARAqVxAJwLhZOyfQfdlV7ETxc41kXD6XC+QgCfejd8
sQz2NGyg3v9Jb9P0NzIgvs4=
=ZXn9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: