[ILUG-BOM] Signing email
Tue Jun 17 17:35:30 IST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 17 Jun 2003 11:12 am, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
> I've been using mutt for a long time now ... it's described by many in
> many different ways, but cumbersome and "not-easy" do not figure in
> that list. In fact shifing from Evolution to mutt has provided big
> gains in terms of time-savings with large volumes of mail. And that
> includes using GPG.
That was a mail by someone who I considered, does not have the level of
experience with mutt like you and others do. Talking about your list, do you
have any plans to modify it and add me into it, who does consider it slightly
difficult to use as against evolution/kmail, so that you do not use that
argument again. To be efficient in using any software you need to invest some
time, besides I don't think you can hold your productivity argument under a
more rigorous analysis.
> BTW, for the original poster, take a look at the following site:
For someone who is currently switching to linux, I don't think it is a good
practice. I have seen through at-least 3 people switch from windows to linux,
and my strategy was to if possible, let them do nearly everything they have
been doing on windows on day one. Once they get hooked up, they read, realize
there is so much more available, and experiment.
Someone trying PGP may not be a newbie, but I took this as an opportunity to
quell doubts regarding GUI mail clients when dealing with encryption. The
concerns are genuine, they use an array of libraries/componenets and failure
in any one of them may lead to compromise, but it seems both evolution and
kmail have been spending significant amount of effort to see to these issues,
and are quite safe today.
> > BTW how come so few on this lug sign there mails? Ignorance?
> Interesting ... anyway, why do so many make sweeping statements about
> software that they do or do not like? When comparing software, if you
> like something over some other, say what you like about it ... no
> need to immediately put down the other party. Live and let live, man!
What are you talking about?
On Tuesday 17 Jun 2003 09:50 am, Ravindra Jaju wrote:
> You can't use them when you are in a hurry and are logging in remotely or
> have no access to GUI or non-X windows supporting environments.
VNC with SSH is fast enough for me, but X is required.
>> Security that is not easy or is cumbersome tends to be unreliable. If you
>> have resonable control over your PC, risks normally associated with GUI
>> misdoings are usually minimal.
> That's true for almost anything (gui or not) if you know what you are doing.
> The more control a s/w gives you, the more responsible you have to be.
> GUIs are normally restrictive in terms of what they offer for configuration.
> (Note: normally, not always)
I was talking about other GUI problems not related to control, for example
accidental writing of mail in temp files by KHTML in case of X-crash was a
problem in case of KMail till sometime back [don't know the exact details].
But still as suggestion for new users, decent GUI apps are preferable over
powerful but arcane counterparts.
>> BTW how come so few on this lug sign there mails? Ignorance?
> No. Trust ;-)
> A lot of it ...
I dint get you!! Please give some more hints.
BTW someone talked about MUA incompatibility issue, how relevant is that?
PS: This whole thing is about what is advisable to a new user, to make sure
they do not switch back. If you are taking in anyother way, you may be
missing the point.
Senior Undergraduate Student
Department of Mechanical Engg.
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Phone: (91) 9820325940
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Linuxers