GPG

[Duston, Hal]

Jason Clinton wrote:
> Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
> > Jason Clinton wrote:   
> > > Ok, this is the fourth person to ask so here's the explination once 
> > > and for all:
> >
> > So you've had four people note that if you have anything interesting 
> > to say, we can't see it because of your arrogant attitude toward the 
> > most common mail software on the net, and your reply is pretty much 
> > that you don't give a hoot.
>
> Furthermore, it's not that it cannot be seen. It's merely that it's made 
> to be incovient (double click the attachment) for the average user which 
> is so typical of MS tatics. They can claim interoperability while still 
> pushing people away from competitors. Take the Java VM lawsuit for
instance.
> 
> If it were any other email client I would switch to inline signing. But, 
> I don't have the least bit of simpathy of a single MS email client user.

Well, here are my current needs for an email client.  It has to run 
on Windows 95, (that's the current standard install here at Sprint PCS).
It has to connect to MS Exchange servers, and provide all the calendar,
meeting-maker type stuff.  I don't know of any other email client 
besides MS Outlook that provides those features.  Yes, I know I should
refuse to work at a place that has those requirements, but then they
would refuse to provide me with cash and I would probably get hungry
after a few days.

Hal