[CLUE-Tech] Any one using Vaio with DSC-P50?

[Stephen Lehr]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed S. Baer" <thag at frii.com>
To: <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] Any one using Vaio with DSC-P50?


> On 28 Sep 2002 12:42:58 -0600
> Ed Hill <ed at eh3.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2002-09-28 at 11:43, Stephen Lehr wrote:
> > >
> > > Your last 2 postings to this list have no text body that I can find.
> > > For what it's worth. . .
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Two reasons its probably not coming through:
> >
> >   1) I'm using Evolution (http://www.ximian.com/) and am GPG-signing
> >      (http://www.gnupg.org/) most my outgoing email.  For this one
> >      email, I'm intentionally *NOT* signing it so that you'll be able
> >      to read it.
> >
> >   2) Your email client and/or your email filtering is garbage.
> >      I almost never use MS products, but I've heard that both MS
> >      LookOut and certain Norton email virus-scanners will not
> >      correctly handle PGP/GPG-signed emails.  And according to
> >      your headers, you're using:
> >
> >        X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> >
> >
> > I strongly suggest that you upgrade your email client and/or examine
> > your email filtering rules.  If you want, I'll be happy to send a few
> > more signed emails so that you can test your upgrades/fixes.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > ps - I've forwarded this to the CLUE TECH list since its certainly
> >      on-topic.  How many other folks are suffering with PGP/GPG
> >      problems due to broken email filters/scanners and/or clients?
>
> Cool! Do we get to have a (small) email-client flame war? ;-) Sylpheed
> R00lz!
>
> Seriously though, I've always sorta wondered whether it's worth the
> trouble to digitally sign all e-mails. Sylpheed supports GPG quite nicely,
> and I've even generated a nifty key. Haven't come up with a reason yet.
> It's sorta along the same lines as sending HTML formatted messages. I'd
> request that when sending e-mail, people consider that the intent is for
> it to be readable by the recipient. Sometimes that means making concession
> for MUAs which might be older (features not supported). I think this is
> especially true when sending to mailing lists. Not trying to pick on
> anybody (at either end), just a general statement on my part.
>
> A quick look at some e-mail envelopes shows very little difference between
> content type multipart/mixed and multipart/signed. I'd guess maybe that
> content type is not recognized?
>
> later,
> jed
> --

I prefer the M$ desktop to what Linux offers, so that's what I use.  I'm
sure I could adapt to the Mac OS X.  I like Linux as a server.

Do I get any points for using Mozilla 1.1 for browsing?

Garbage?  Harumph!