On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:28:42PM +0200, Christian Stigen Larsen wrote:
P.S. What's the deal with version 2.6.3i of PGP ? Why
are a lot of people using this version instead
of the 5 and 5.5 versions ?
Because pgp 2.6.3 is faster, smaller and easier to use (imho of course ;).
-Lex
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:28:42PM +0200, Christian Stigen Larsen wrote:
I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had
some small problems using it with mutt, it
didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk
instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with
this ?
Well, PGP5 has a
Christian --
...and then Christian Stigen Larsen said...
% I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had
% some small problems using it with mutt, it
% didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk
% instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with
% this ?
Mutt is pgp5-, pgp2-, and
On 1999-07-15 07:38:53 -0400, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote:
Still, it's an interesting concept... Perhaps the public keys of
each subscriber could be registered with the list management software,
which would use a much less bogus private key to decrypt (in batch mode
without human
Christian Stigen Larsen sent off:
Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt an e-mail and send it to a
mailinglist, having all the recipients being able to decrypt it ?
People have sent you answers, but it depends on the politics of the list.
Unfortunately in some countries
I tried installing mutt and pgp5i, but I had
some small problems using it with mutt, it
didn't work very well since you have to use pgpk
instead of pgp -k now.. Is tehre any "trick" with
this ?
Also another question: Is it possible to encrypt
an e-mail and send it to a mailinglist, having
all
