Re: [Evolution] Re: Encryption Interoperability (was: should we support pgp interfaces?)



It looks like fejj and notzed have made good progress with the
encryption in evolution. I'm a little gun-shy of the cvs HEAD stuff, or
I'd be building it now. I'll wait for the release, unless you guys feel
really strongly that it's pretty stable. I suffer from the fact that
evolution is so darn handy, I depend on it now, and I can't spend a day
or two (or a week or two) not getting mail if the HEAD revision has some
problem.

I congratulate the evolution team on their efforts to support encryption
in evolution. I've never had any real problem sending encrypted matter
to myself or others with evolution. But I have had big probs sending
encrypted matter to non-evolution users. It's not been evolution's
problem in the cases I've seen, but as far as I can tell, Microsoft
either is not able to provide direct PGP support, doesn't want to, or
has such brain-dead hooks for 3rd party software, that no one can
provide good support (based on the success of the PGP i/f with any other
than PGP output). I don't know about any of the others.

Unfortunately, even if evolution is perfect at encryption, until the
majority of other packages in use can handle evolution encrypted data,
and vice-versa, interoperability is just a far off dream. And encryption
for the masses-- forget it.

Outlook seems to be be the most used mail interface in the world. I
guess if the GPG guys really want to make GPG/pgp a hit, they need to
come up with an Outlook interface that is not only as good as what PGP
did, but better, and interoperates with all the other (non-braindead at
least) mailers. I guess this is nigh unto impossible, as it is evident
from using it, that the PGP outlook interface seems to be pretty well
thought out, and has a lot of man-hours behind it. Who knows, maybe if
they weren't on the verge of going out of business, they may have had
the resources to adapt to evolution...

murf




On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 05:27, Not Zed wrote:

multipart/signed has been fixed in 1.1.x version.  It treats the content
entirely as opaque data as per rfc.

The 'openpgp' inline-pgp stuff wont, and probably never will, be
reliable or supported.

2. Evolution PGP signatures louse up outlook. It's most likely OK to

...snipped...



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]