E-Mail Encryption: Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?

[Graham]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 17 Nov 2002 3:52 am, carl w spitzer wrote:

> Why not leave GNUPG as a console app and write shells separately?
> We have shells going back to win311 for PGP 2.6.x

We're not suggesting that this should not happen, merely that the "front=20
ends" should be true front ends through which all the functions of GPG=20
can be accessed, not just Key Managers.

With the advent of KGPG, we're well on the way in Linux to the=20
equivalent of Window's GPGShell, and its to be welcomed.  But GPA and=20
the like do not claim to be any more than Key Managers (and out of date=20
at that), and when you look at the various shells for PGP 2.6.x in Win=20
3.11, they were much more than Key Managers.
- --=20

Graham
GPG Keys at encryption.keys@ntlworld.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy

iD8DBQE92BnMIwtBZOk1250RAsgJAJ9IT06xgcpQP/j0pE7jKlOz5l+fsACg3mUn
4RrqFBiiEXbawZbp0O0yWeA=3D
=3DXvWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----