On 2014-02-02 09:54, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 2/2/2014 12:48 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> On 2014-02-02 00:34, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> 1. It has demonstrated unacceptable usability for average users. >> >> At last my view and experience is that latest Enigmail and MacGPG is >> making it usable. >> >> The key exchange is hard, but works really well in Enigmail+Thunderbird, >> as key management is directly from mail read/compose window. Not in a >> separate application. > > You think that's a system that can and will be convenient and used by > the mass market??? > > So why isn't it already? Several reasons, but specifically two: A. Even people like we engineers (just look at your message) is unaware of the good software that is out there B. It is not supported by Microsoft/Outlook out of the box >>> 2. It does not protect the header or the envelope, to the extent anyone >>> cares about divulging the Subject or other message meta-data... >> >> Correct. It only protects what it protects. >> >>> 3. It's packaging in the body is ugly. (See #1) >> >> Huh? >> >> It is using multipart/signed just like other security mechanisms that >> protects the body. > > Take a look at the message that John posted, opening this thread. That > some systems use multipart/signed is fine, but it's not what's most > common for PGP. I disagree. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature