1996-07-03 - Re: Lack of PGP signatures

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: “David F. Ogren” <ogren@cris.com>
Message Hash: c9e1560f59166995180ddd57f83d93b0135c72d8b9e246e01f196864ba4f1567
Message ID: <199607030500.BAA26348@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199607022343.TAA21050@darius.cris.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-03 08:13:19 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:13:19 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:13:19 +0800
To: "David F. Ogren" <ogren@cris.com>
Subject: Re: Lack of PGP signatures
In-Reply-To: <199607022343.TAA21050@darius.cris.com>
Message-ID: <199607030500.BAA26348@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"David F. Ogren" writes:
> Atkins) do not seem to PGP clearsign their messages to this list. In fact, 
> a surprisingly small percentage of messages on the C-punk list are signed. 
> This despite the fact that the average subscriber is at least literate in 
> PGP.
> 
> Does anybody have any speculation on why this is?

I'd say this is it:

> Is it because most mail programs are not PGP aware?





Thread