Re: [Evolution] Outlook does not like .asc signature

[Ian Scott <ian pairowoodies com>]

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 17:40, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 14:54, Ed Weinberg wrote:
> > > I've ceased sending signed messages to mailing lists because of all the
> > > complaints from Outlook users... it always amazes me that so many
> > > otherwise highly intelligent people insist on using broken tools :(
> >
> > Unfortunatley when one mail program is used by so many people, bugs
> > become features.  This week, we can't fight this.  That means that we
> > either need to use tools that that can inter-operate with those bugs or
> > not participate on the Internet.
>
> I have to disagree. It is still far better to conform to the standards.

With all due respect, 'Standards' is a tricky notion.  You can have a
standard, but if there is even a large _Minority_ who don't use it, then
the 'standard' means little.  Reality is such that standards are set by
what is usable.  If it ain't usable, 'standards' don't mean a whole lot.

I love Evolution.  But unfortunately, when it comes to signatures and
encryption, it's very unusable with most of the people I communicate
with.  As much as I'd love to convince those people to switch to Linux,
and even use Evolution, it's not going to happen any time soon.  

In the real world, usability is also a standard.  My income depends on
being able to communicate with others via email.  As much as I'd love to
be a rebel and argue with folks about whether they are using software
that meets 'standards', it would be foolhardy of me to do that.  I'd
lose customers and clients that will end up going to someone who uses
software that is easier for them to deal with on their end.  And in the
end, this is the 'standard' that will become most important, whether we
like it or not.  
-- 
Ian Scott <ian pairowoodies com>