. . .
Mozilla is founded [funded probably] by Google. Without Google
they would be gone.
Googles business model is not to protect the user but to analyze him.
That is not possible when you use mail encryption.
The question is still valid and imo, some pressure from the user
community
On 2/20/12 7:55 PM, Steve wrote:
Hm, that was also bothering me with the other mails you wrote on
this topic earlier. It's already very late here, so bare with me I'm
taking this from remembrance. You said due to the fact that the world
is very big and web of trust not used much, it can't
Has there been a concerted effort to make Enigmail an integral part of
Thunderbird, distributed with it? If yes, what are the reasons that it
has been rejected so far? If no, why not?
Werner replied:
The Mozillas don't like OpenPGP. To them it is probably too much
anarchy compared to
On 2/20/12 2:24 PM, Steve wrote:
Mozilla is founded by Google.
Mozilla receives funds from Google and others. The and others bit is
important.
Without Google they would be gone.
Without Google Mozilla would have to find other partners. I'm willing
to bet cash money on the barrelhead they
On 2/20/12 2:24 PM, steveb...@gulli.com wrote:
. . .
Mozilla is founded [funded probably] by Google. Without Google
they would be gone.
Googles business model is not to protect the user but to analyze him.
That is not possible when you use mail encryption.
The question is still valid and imo,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Cc:
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:12:24 -0500
Subject: Re: PGP/MIME use
On 2/1/12 5:53 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Yes, I'm ignoring Windows, mostly because I have absolutely no idea
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012, 01:04:57 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
It is hard for me to believe that a serious user of GnuPG does not
use it for email.
This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. If someone uses GnuPG but
not for email, does that disqualify them from being a serious user?
On 2/1/12 10:47 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Of course not. I just don't believe that there are many examples of
this type out there. To me a serious user is one who actively signs,
encrypts, and/or verifies data and knows what he is doing. He has
created a key and verified at least one. Everything
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:47, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said:
That's not true for a certain quite popular OS. How many Windows users
install
GnuPG without Enigmail? Given the huge difference in Linux and Windows users
this affects the calculation a lot.
A quick data point. From March to
On 01/02/12 16:19, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
As soon as both Thunderbird *and* Enigmail are part of a standard Linux
installation, let me know. I'd love to know about it. Until then, I
think Enigmail is going to remain a niche player.
Has there been a concerted effort to make Enigmail an
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:40, gn...@lists.grepular.com said:
Has there been a concerted effort to make Enigmail an integral part of
Thunderbird, distributed with it? If yes, what are the reasons that it
has been rejected so far? If no, why not?
The Mozillas don't like OpenPGP. To them it is
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:55:05 +0100
Werner Koch articulated:
The Mozillas don't like OpenPGP. To them it is probably too much
anarchy compared to S/SMIME. Ask the Mammon.
Windows users prefer S/MIME. I know I use it on my Windows machines
because it does not require me to install more
gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org wrote on 02/01/2012 10:51:46 AM:
- Message from Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org on Wed,
01 Feb 2012 11:19:08 -0500 -
To:
gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject:
Re: PGP/MIME use
On 2/1/12 10:47 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Of course not. I just
On 2/1/12 11:40 AM, gn...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
Has there been a concerted effort to make Enigmail an integral part
of Thunderbird, distributed with it?
I don't know what you mean by a concerted effort. Maybe five Enigmail
users count under your definition, maybe fifty: maybe two people
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:19, je...@seibercom.net said:
Windows users prefer S/MIME. I know I use it on my Windows machines
because it does not require me to install more applications. It works
But users need to pay their Internet tax to Verislime et al. Or, tinger
with CAcert root certificates.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:37:56 -0500
michaelquig...@theway.org articulated:
However, I've written scripts to
routinely sign files for transmission to our bank.
Does your bank actually verify those signed documents? I have sent
documents to various organizations, both signed and unsigned and
On 2/1/12 2:23 PM, Jerry wrote:
Does your bank actually verify those signed documents?
I can't vouch for financial institutions. I can tell you that when I
was working in electronic voting, whenever I asked questions about do
you verify signatures? I was always assured that yes, yes they did.
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012, 19:37:56 schrieb michaelquig...@theway.org:
I would be one who fits in the other case. I've never signed an
e-mail--no one at our organization does. (Not that I wouldn't like to,
but nearly all those with whom I communicate wouldn't have any use for nor
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:40:23 -0500
Robert J. Hansen articulated:
I liked hearing the Gee, look at the time, gotta go answer. It
seemed to be the most honest.
YMMV, and banks are definitely different beasts from voting
authorities.
I used to get the Gee bit to when I asked for a raise.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Wednesday 1 February 2012 at 5:19:41 PM, in
mid:20120201121941.5e100a23@scorpio, Jerry wrote:
Windows users prefer S/MIME.
Seems likely to me that the majority of Windows users use neither
S/MIME nor openPGP.
- --
Best regards
MFPA
On 2/1/12 4:14 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
I just don't understand why someone who has understood the
concept and is capable of validating keys of others, encrypting, decrypting
and signing should not use that technology for his email.
I have referred to this paper probably five times or more on
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:35:21 +
MFPA articulated:
Seems likely to me that the majority of Windows users use neither
S/MIME nor openPGP.
Which would equate to the majority of non-Windows users. However, of
those users on MS Windows that do use a form of document signing, I
believe that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/1/2012 04:38 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I have referred to this paper probably five times or more on this list
and other lists. I really wish people would read it. I'm getting tired
of answering this -- it's my least-favorite
On 2/1/12 5:02 PM, Christopher J. Walters wrote:
I have read the abstract, and admit that I only skimmed the rest of
that paper. I find that it is only really talking about the use of
public key encryption of messages, and the human factors that lead
to the decision of whether or not to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Wednesday 1 February 2012 at 9:14:33 PM, in
mid:201202012214.38430.mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de, Hauke Laging
wrote:
I just don't understand why someone
who has understood the concept and is capable of
validating keys of others,
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012, 23:19:43 schrieb MFPA:
I just don't understand why someone
who has understood the concept and is capable of
validating keys of others, encrypting, decrypting and
signing should not use that technology for his email
(neither professional nor private).
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012, 17:19:08 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
On 2/1/12 10:47 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Of course not. I just don't believe that there are many examples of
this type out there. To me a serious user is one who actively signs,
encrypts, and/or verifies data and knows what he
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2012, 22:38:57 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
On 2/1/12 4:14 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
I just don't understand why someone who has understood the
concept and is capable of validating keys of others, encrypting,
decrypting and signing should not use that technology for his
On 2/1/12 5:53 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
I apologize if anyone had the impression that I used your quote
wrongly (but why should I?). The point is that you said nothing about
Windows which due to its market share cannot be ignored. And that has
no relation to the context of your quote.
Yes,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/1/2012 04:35 PM, MFPA wrote:
Seems likely to me that the majority of Windows users use neither
S/MIME nor openPGP.
This is an assumption. I, personally, have a dual-boot system with a GNU/Linux
OS and Windows 7. Ever since I discovered
On 2/1/12 6:08 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
My question was NOT Why do so few people use email cryptography?
But that is the question this paper wants to answer.
Your statement was, I just don't understand why someone who has
understood the concept[s] and is capable of [using the software] should
Am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012, 00:27:04 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
Your statement was, I just don't understand why someone who has
understood the concept[s] and is capable of [using the software] should
not use that technology for his email. That's a statement, not a
question:
You are so
On 2/1/2012 7:30 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Your statement was, I just don't understand why someone who has
understood the concept[s] and is capable of [using the software] should
not use that technology for his email. That's a statement, not a
question:
You are so right. You like quotation
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:08 -0500
Robert J. Hansen articulated:
This comes fairly close to my own practices, with one significant
exception: since it's almost impossible for me to know whether all the
MUAs used on a mailing list support PGP/MIME, I feel it's better for
mailing list traffic
Supporting the inline method is like supporting a grown child. If you
keep supporting him/her, they will never leave home. Stop supporting
them and they will leave. The same is true for inline PGP. If support
for it were to cease, it would also.
That was the idea behind the question I posed
On 31/01/12 16:23, Steve wrote:
You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some
information. Should I still stop signing list mails? So far, I used to do
that, because I though people then could check and if my key is signed by
someone they know it's a lot of
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Steve wrote in
946fffc5-a191-4073-9d69-fc7fdc695...@gpgtools.org:
Of course, I really feel it's better for mailing list traffic to not
be signed at all, since usually all it gives us is a false sense of
security. A signature from an unvalidated key
On 01/31/2012 11:23 AM, Steve wrote:
Sometimes if the right parties decide to no longer support an old
standard the software that does not support the new (better)
standard will die or get improved...
This works if and only if the right parties are a large enough market
to push
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 19:46:05 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
Enigmail isn't. Assume we
have 50,000 installations. (This sounds like a lot, but it's a pale
shadow compared to GnuPG installations.)
Do you mean hidden installations (used unnoticedly by a distribution's
update tool in the
Jerry wrote:
I totally agree. I have never seen or heard any logical excuse for the
signing of list traffic.
I almost never sign anything unless I suspect the destination can at
least ignore the signature. The people with whom I send e-mail (a
diminishing population because most have moved to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remco Rijnders wrote:
I appreciate signed mails on this list (and any other lists). Most
problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to
people being completely anonymous. If you stand behind your words,
show so by signing
From: Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Cc:
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:46:05 -0500
Subject: Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
I now see no utility to them for the vast majority of uses.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
One, albeit rather
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, re...@webconquest.com wrote:
Most problems these days on the internet are,
in my opinion, related to people being completely
anonymous. If you stand behind your words, show
so by signing your posts.
If the idea is more important than who said it, signing
(in both the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 31 January 2012 at 6:02:27 PM, in
mid:4f282cb3.3040...@lists.grepular.com, gn...@lists.grepular.com
wrote:
IMO, if there's one place you should be able to sign
email, it's the GnuPG users mailing list. It's called
dogfooding.
One, albeit rather unimportant, use is to help people with whom you
would like to regularly communicate access and check your key a bit
more easily, especially for people with multiple keys.
Putting a kludge in email headers or a OpenPGP Key ID: 0xD6B98E10 in
the sigblock seems to be a more
Warning: do not take *any* of the numbers here seriously. They may be
completely divorced from reality. These numbers are like Monopoly money
-- completely fake, but still useful to illuminate important lessons
about the real thing.
This email is also quite long, and I apologize for that. I
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:04:57 -0500
Robert J. Hansen articulated:
And then I imagined my dean answering, That proves nothing: after
all, if I was posting this stuff I wouldn't sign it, either.
Don't apologize, I loved you post. One of the better one's I have read
in a while. It appears that
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:26PM -0500, Jean-David wrote in
4f283c2a.6070...@verizon.net:
Remco Rijnders wrote:
I appreciate signed mails on this list (and any other lists). Most
problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to
people being completely anonymous. If you
On 1/30/12 6:09 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
I always get a chuckle every time I read someone writing that inline signing
is
somehow deprecated. Strangely enough, the only place I can find the
origination of such an idea is in the PGP/MIME RFC 3156 itself which strikes
me
as somewhat
49 matches
Mail list logo
