Re: PGP Signed Messages

[Stephen Waters <swaters () amicus com>]

Not to start a big, huge thread about "well my client does yadda yadda",
but I find that Evolution has very nice PGP integration. It works nearly
transparently with gpg under Linux, going and doing all the boring work
for me.

Well, assuming the signature was attached ala the relevant RFC. If it's
an inline signature, you have to manually check it... which I don't,
generally.

http://ximian.com/products/ximian_evolution/

No, I don't work for Ximian, I just dig the client.
-s
pgp newbie

On Mon, 2001-10-15 at 16:32, Kurt Seifried wrote:
> SIGNATURE-----). If people don't bother to check the signature (very very
> very common!) then it doesn't matter much. Iused to sign all my email with
> PGP for a while, then started forging them and no-one complained. Hell, I've
> seen security alerts with totally messed up MD5 sums/signatures/etc/etc and
> after notifying the appropriate people typically gotten a "yeah we made a
> mistake, but only 3 people noticed". One reason for X.509 instead of PGP for
> email, clients automatically check stuff and display a nasty warning (in
> outlook anyways) if it isn't signed right, has been modified/etc. Also
> another reason why you should ENCRYPT sensitive data aswell as sign it.

Attachment: _bin
Description: