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

[Graham]

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

On Wednesday 23 Oct 2002 2:43 pm, Gill, John wrote:

> The interface is too confusing for the "average-home" user.  It's
> like asking them to perform a tune-up on a car. They just don't know
> or care to know.  Encryption is a great idea, but because of user
> interface issues it's still for power-users or better.

What interface with GnuPG?

Even the proprietary PGP has a GUI interface, and its not too bad, but=20
could be refined.  GnuPG has no GUI, and so it is even less embracing.

In Linux, there are NO GUI front ends that can be used for all GPG=20
commands; those that are available are merely key editors with some nod=20
towards encryption facilities.  GPA, as an example, doesn't show trust=20
properly.  In Windows you at least have GPGShell and WinPT; GPGShell is=20
the most PGP-like interface and the easiest to use (IMHO).

But both of these interface to a program that is commandline only: most=20
computer users in the world don't even know what a CLI is, and we're=20
going nowhere unless we break free from the limitations that imposes.

Surely its not beyond the expertise of those who produce such a=20
brilliant program an GnuPG to provide a GUI interface through which ALL=20
commands can be given and which (in Linux anyway) can be used as a=20
stand alone program to encrypt or sign emails even in MUAs without GPG=20
integration?
- --=20

Graham
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Please sign and encrypt for internet privacy

iD8DBQE9ttL1IwtBZOk1250RAiitAKDrOnTFEI8QpPCAgKSlL0ZE9W9XWQCfThjX
Gl1MLzM6irC4O8XwFPnHYIY=3D
=3D/9sq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----