[sugar] xomail

Joshua N Pritikin jpritiki
Tue Apr 29 14:41:15 EDT 2008


On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:27:56AM -0400, Kevin Cole wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Joshua N Pritikin <jpritikin at pobox.com> wrote:
> >  I think a better angle on the problem is to be more aggressive about
> >  blocking email. Can we GPG sign email by default?
> 
> I hope you weren't serious about GPG either.  ;-)
> 
> I suppose people can tolerate a wee bit o' garbage at the end of their
> messages, if for whatever reason they don't have access to GPG (e.g. I
> don't get this list in my GPG-capable MUA, but use the web interface
> -- and don't particularly like FireGPG).  But do you want people to
> type a password on every send?

No. The private key does not need to be password protected.

> If not, aren't you kind of defeating the whole point of GPG, or am I 
> misunderstanding you?

It's not a perfect strategy, I agree. However, I think it's better than 
nothing. The school server could be configured to bounce unsigned email or 
allow only certain whitelist signatures to pass through the mail server. 

If a kid really wants unrestricted email then Gmail exists. Email is 
great, but we need to protect kids until they are old enough to handle the 
responsibility.



More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list