-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Marck,
Tuesday, January 7, 2003, 2:02:45 PM, you wrote: MDP> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- MDP> Hash: SHA1 MDP> Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED], MDP> @7-Jan-2003, 13:30 +0100 (12:30 UK time) MDP> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [C] in MDP> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP>>> Like most windows MUAs The Bat! does not implement PGP/MIME in MDP>>> any of the supported PGP/GnuPG profiles. That's what you're MDP>>> actually talking about. This does not answer the original MDP>>> question. C>> Well, ok, a bit emotional, but that's because ritlabs doesn't C>> feel like replying to questions about the PGP/GnuPG plug-in. MDP> RITlabs don't actually reply to many questions, period. They don't MDP> have many staff and are working very hard on new releases. Also, it MDP> is the Christmas / New year holidays in Moldova yesterday and today MDP> so the offices are closed. :-) I tried a few times since early December ... so, yes, they don't reply many ... C>> It did cost me a whole day to find out why I couldn't decrypt the C>> messages people sent me with TheBat, and just to find out that C>> TheBat is using a so called "not very secure, old standard" C>> (these are not my words! You'll find them on the OpenPGP C>> website!) for message encoding. MDP> The words are misleading. This "old standard" is widely used and is MDP> absolutely "standard". The PGP/MIME is gradually spreading but is MDP> not widely used/accepted. Especially not in Windows software. Mmh ... ok, look, I am a developer myself and am pretty well informed about a lot of stuff, but still, even so I'm heavily involved in IT since more than 12 years, I don't know all the standards or wannabes and stuff about all the different developments. And I think there should be something on ritlabs site saying what the plug-ins can do and what not. I was in the situation needing to decrypt a highly important message and not having any information why I couldn't. So, how's about an end-user? Not being informed about this stuff at all? Additional I couldn't send my documents as attachments without third party tools, because TheBat didn't encrypt them. It's misleading, but from RITlabs! The other guys with evolution are just on top of all this, confusing people for good ;-) C>> It is FACT that TheBat won't encrypt attached files/documents! MDP> Not using PGP/MIME it won't. It will using S/MIME, which *is* a MDP> widely used and ratified standard in all senses. All implementations MDP> of S/MIME should inter-operate in ways that PGP/MIME implementations MDP> don't yet seem to. C>> This is not exactly what I expected. MDP> That's because you have been misled by a Linux MUA user group that MDP> thinks that the development trend Evolution has taken over the past MDP> six months (of full support for PGP/MIME) is suddenly the only game MDP> in town. It isn't. nope, that's because I couldn't find *any* information on ritlabs site saying something different. For this encryption stuff I am an end-user like most others and RITlabs can't expect the user to know all about this PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG/MIME/whatever stuff. If they say using this plugin with GnuPG will encrypt my message, I expect it to encrypt my *whole* message. This includes all attachments! C>> And it also doesn't decrypt attached files in received mails. So C>> there IS incompatibility with other mailers! MDP> Only those using the not-very-widely used PGP/MIME "standard". Right, but how should I know? I knew after seeking the internet for many many hours ... with no help or information at all from RITlabs :-( But anyway, thank you for all the information :-) - -- Best regards, Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) iD8DBQE+Gti9YTfQI7+Ck0ARAqgjAKCcYBhQ5RjeQ9OjZ45vFAnFoQN/SgCgifH2 K1xa2kMPOAV97hL3zcn+YrY= =tNCx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
