dave at howorth.org.uk
Mon Dec 4 20:17:01 CET 2017
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:14:22 +0000
Paul <claws at thewildbeast.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:15:04 -0500
> "Michael A. Yetto" <myetto1 at nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Autocrypt first aims to provide convenient encryption that is
> > neither perfect nor as secure as traditional e-mail encryption, but
> > is convenient enough for much wider adoption."
> Since using PGP/GPG is not difficult or inconvenient, and autocrypt is
> not as secure, then there seems to be little point going forward.
They're probably aiming at people like me. I don't use PGP/GPG and
don't check the signatures of those who do, because I've never suffered
any problems as a result of mistaken identity etc. So I'm probably open
to a bunch of possible attacks but I still haven't bothered to apply or
even learn how to apply the tools that are available. i.e. PGP/GPG has
an entry barrier that is too high for me at present. I don't want any
But having said that, if I did bother about such issues I would want a
solution that was secure, not just something that was convenient. So
I'd agree with Paul's assessment.
I also wonder why the project chose the name of an existing unrelated
product as its name?
More information about the Users