On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:27:56AM -0400, Kevin Cole wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Joshua N Pritikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think a better angle on the problem is to be more aggressive about > > blocking email. Can we GPG sign email by default? > > I hope you weren't serious about GPG either. ;-) > > I suppose people can tolerate a wee bit o' garbage at the end of their > messages, if for whatever reason they don't have access to GPG (e.g. I > don't get this list in my GPG-capable MUA, but use the web interface > -- and don't particularly like FireGPG). But do you want people to > type a password on every send?
No. The private key does not need to be password protected. > If not, aren't you kind of defeating the whole point of GPG, or am I > misunderstanding you? It's not a perfect strategy, I agree. However, I think it's better than nothing. The school server could be configured to bounce unsigned email or allow only certain whitelist signatures to pass through the mail server. If a kid really wants unrestricted email then Gmail exists. Email is great, but we need to protect kids until they are old enough to handle the responsibility. _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
