"annoying" inline gpg signatures (Was : Re: How to put a file in RAM)

[Francisco Borges]

» On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:38AM -0400, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:

> So it seams to me that the only way to check the sig is if you
> choose to use an email client that has gpg functions built in.
>
> THAT is annoying! Especially since I happen to be addicted to pine,
[...]

> into attachments and I'm left without any quoted text to reply to in the
> message body. And using the clipboard and manually inserting the quote
> ">" characters is a real pain... THAT too is annoying!
[...]

> I'd have more respect for mime attached signatures, if they had
> been designed for it to be possible to save the parts to files and

I say I'd have more respect for pine, if it could handle mime
attachments properly <wink>

> verify from the command line, rather than ONLY being able to be
> verified by a gpg aware mail client.

I can see part of your point.  It *would* be nice to do it on the
command line as well.

However... the "message" I got from your email is:

1. You are "addicted" to a non-free crappy mailer that causes you all
   sorts of trouble, due to its incapacity to handle mime attachments
   (hardly breakthrough tech these days BTW);

2. and proceed to complain about how mime attachments don't particularly
   help people that decide to ignore it and still want to get the job
   done, in order to keep using crappy (non-free!) software??

Please.

Makes me think why we come up with standards in the first place and why
it helps to use software that implements (widely used) standards.

[...]

If changing email/news client is really out of question, consider at
least using a different editor. In emacs, at least, it would be very
easy (select-region -> comment-dwin) to comment text with ">". Probably
also easy with vim.

Cheers,
-- 
Francisco

(who was a pine user a long time ago)