3 ms·
And a more recent statement: "Was reflecting on how the quality of my email inbox had become less awful lately, then remembered I added a rule to drop pgp encry
by scintill76 11y ago
And a more recent statement: "Was reflecting on how the quality of my email inbox had become less awful lately, then remembered I added a rule to drop pgp encrypted mail." https://twitter.com/moxie/status/709492776635752448 https://twitter.com/moxie/status/709492776635752448
- Freak_NL 11y agoReading that, and the blog post linked to by sigmar, his stance comes across as rather belligerent; perhaps even childish. I would expect that if you wanted to communicate with someone who is privacy-conscious, and provides a public e-mail address linked to a GPG-identity, encrypting and signing your message to him or her is only civil and is to be expected. I understand Moxie's criticism of existing crypto-tools, GnuPG in particular, and he makes some valid points, but dismissing anyone who mails you and uses GPG (because you have published your GPG public key) as nutjobs seems overly antagonistic. That to me seems at odds with the greater goal of facilitating easily attainable privacy and digital freedom for all.
- throwaway7767 11y agoIt sounds like he's talking about encrypted mail from people he doesn't know. I can't speak for others, but the proportion of email I get from strangers that ranks high on a content-quality scale is approximately zero. Encryption status, encoding and MIME types don't seem to have much to do with it.