41–50 of 77 posts
For those of us who have never heard of this software, it would be great if somewhere prominent on the webpage it said what GPGMail actually is. Instead the most prominent thing is how many bug fixes and sleepless nights this mystery software required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a special hack version out for Mavericks: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gpgtools/GPGMail-Mavericks-P2-hack.... And you need this fix for the latest DP 4: http://support.gpgtools.org/discussions/everything/9888-mave...
They just shipped support for Mountain Lion, which was released one year ago. I hope there is not as big a delay for Mavericks. I understand that it's a volunteer project, but a kickstarter could surely help them muster the $100 for a Mac developer subscription and access to the developer previews of 10.9.
The last version of GPGTools I looked at had the irritating habit of always installing its own copy of GPG into /usr/local and not letting me use my own version (e.g., from Homebrew). Is this still the case in version 2? It would be far cleaner if it was more self-contained (e.g., included GPG inside its installation bundle), and then let the user pick an alternative OpenPGP installation in the preferences.
The last version of GPGTools I looked at had the irritating habit of always installing its own copy of GPG into /usr/local and not letting me use my own version (e.g., from Homebrew). Is this still the case in version 2? It would be far cleaner if it was more self-contained (e.g., included GPG inside its installation bundle), and then let the user pick an alternative OpenPGP installation in the preferences.
brew link gpg2 --overwrite
The last version of GPGTools I looked at had the irritating habit of always installing its own copy of GPG into /usr/local and not letting me use my own version (e.g., from Homebrew). Is this still the case in version 2? It would be far cleaner if it was more self-contained (e.g., included GPG inside its installation bundle), and then let the user pick an alternative OpenPGP installation in the preferences.
GPGTools guys — if you're reading this thread, please please stop installing stuff outside your plugin's bundles.
The last version of GPGTools I looked at had the irritating habit of always installing its own copy of GPG into /usr/local and not letting me use my own version (e.g., from Homebrew). Is this still the case in version 2? It would be far cleaner if it was more self-contained (e.g., included GPG inside its installation bundle), and then let the user pick an alternative OpenPGP installation in the preferences.
This is just MacOS nonsense. It plays in the Valley and at the mall, and nowhere else. The only reason it is on the front page of Hacker News is that we can't see outside our own event horizon. Poke me when a popular web email service implements GPG.
From where I sit I watch the Amish ride by in their horse-drawn buggies several times a day. I'm about as far away from the Valley as you can get (technology-wise) and it "plays" quite well here also.
* GPG2 seems to be up and running very nicely, and it was an easy switch to get Enigmail set up to recognize it. (My previous MacGPG installation evidently installed GPG1. That seems to be orphaned now, I guess? Any suggestions for an ideal way to clean out its old stuff? I haven't seen it mentioned on your site.)
* This is the first GPG distribution that I can remember using that didn't provide hashes and a detached signature to verify the integrity of the downloaded file.
* It looks like the provided man pages were not symlinked into /usr/local/share/man/man1 (to match the way that the binaries were symlinked into /usr/local/bin).
* For reasons I've yet to track down, the GPGPreferences preference pane hangs whenever I try to open it. (I'll file a bug and/or ask for help on your forums eventually; just mentioning it here as part of the experience.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just two nitpicks: You can sign email with GPG even if others aren’t using it (of course it will be of little value to them until they, possibly at a later date, verified your key), and it is supported on Android by K-9, I believe.
Yes you can, but my point was that this is of no utility with GPG. Whereas with s/mime anyone can confirm that your email was signed (with many email clients), so there is value to using s/mime prior to all your contacts also using it.
Provided that they trust the people handing out these certificates – with PGP, they need a chain of trust to your key to verify that it is you, with S/MIME, they have to trust random third parties. Or do I miss something and you mean something else that is possible with S/MIME but not PGP?