On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people > > that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer. > > Part of the problem with PGP is that only "people that know enough to care" > use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and privately with > everyone -- even Outlook and Netscape users.
My only point was that the people that care about the bandwidth issues and that you are likely going to be communicating with are for the most part going to be people that are using a decent mailer. These people would both benefit from this kind of compression and be able to take advantage of it. The people you are likely to coorespond with that wouldn't be able to take advantage of it would also likely not need to, either because they didn't know enough to care or because they would be [American] end users who wouldn't have the same kind of per-minute costs or poor quality connections. Thus you could continue to communicate with all people the way you want, without imposing unneccessary expectations on any of them. The people you actually coorespond with may well make the above generalizations completely bogus, but I think they would hold true in most situations. > Even on the mutt list, there are people who use Outlook or Netscape. On most > mailing lists, they form the majority. If a large number of people can't > securely communicate with me, i haven't achieved the goal. So even if we > wrote such an extension, i wouldn't use it. It's worth noting again that the issue only applies to signatures, not to messages that are actually encrypted, since encryption generally implies compression as well. If people are able to encrypt their mail they've achieved a gain in relation to their bandwidth issues, and a 3k sig vs. a .2k sig is pretty much irrelevant. > However, due to overwhelming demand and the unusual demographics of the mutt > lists, i've added the following to my .muttrc so that messages i post here > will be signed instead with PGP: > > folder-hook . 'set smime_is_default=yes' > folder-hook =mutt 'set smime_is_default=no' Heh... even easier than I thought. Thanks.
msg24097/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
