[Gpg4win-users-en] Is gpg4win dropping winpt?

[Barry Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Group:

Yes, I know that it's bad form to reply to yourself on-list, but I
have received three private emails in reply from fellow list members.

One person replied to me twice off-list, agreeing that WinPT is the
best.  Two points that the person made were --
>>
bs> WinPT is a far superior and a much more powerful and a much cleaner
bs> looking application than any other windows front-end for gpg.

Totally agree. There isn't really a decent choice of front ends
available for Windows, and WinPT, although in desperate need of
further development, is about the only decent way left of managing GPG
via a GUI.
>>
... and ...
>>
bs> Yet dropping WinPT is just ridiculous without some major compatibility
bs> issue.

Well I'd like to hear more on this as well. GPGee never seems to work for
very long before it stops doing anything so that leaves me with WinPT only.
I'd love to see a really up-to-date front end for GPG windows users, but gpa
isn't it IMO.
>>

On the ' "up-to-date" front-end for GPG' topic, I mentioned on-group
that WinPT has two major updates since WinPT 1.2.0.  The current WinPT
version is 1.4.0.

- ---- I don't know why gpg4win has not updated WinPT to 1.4.0 in
their package, and that is still an open question on this thread (if
any gpg4win builders want to speak up).


Another person asked me (off-list) --
??> Have you looked into GPGShell?

Yes, I started out using the GPGShell front-end initially (years ago).
I just looked at the screenshots at http://www.jumaros.de/ , and I'm
impressed with the updates to GPGShell (from when I used it years
ago), but GPGShell doesn't appear to have ALL of the functionality
that WinPT does.  I'll download GPGShell and see.


Back to topic -

There must be a lot of (unspoken, silent majority) satisfaction out
there with WinPT as part of gpg4win.  Maybe a loss of WinPT from the
gpg4win package will affect many others as it affects me.


Feel free to speak up on-list.
- -- If gpg4win IS dropping WinPT, could someone on the packaging team
verify this contention, and explain why this contention is the path
that was chosen?
- -- If you are a gpg user and you like and use WinPT... and you think
that it is a good part of the gpg4win package, let the gpg4win
administrators/builders know.  Speak out loud on this list, and make
up a bug report and speak to them that way as well.
(I was told once that a bug report was the only way to get anything
done. Not sure I agree, but it was only a suggestion to me.)


Slightly off-topic, but pertinent to the discussion/comparison of gpg
front-ends --
- - The one global problem that I see in ALL gpg front-ends is group support...
- ---
     Note: a "group" in GPG is the function/process to define a name
for a group of keys, and encrypt to that group name using all of the
keys (and groups) associated with the "group name".
- ---
- -  ... which is what inspired me to start pouring through the code
for FireGPG and see if I could help them add group support to their
application.

I've presented some ideas to the FireGPG team lead, and am working to
make part of group support in FireGPG as similar to use as FireGPG's
support of keys.  The solution is still in the design stage, so I'll
stop this discussion now on-group. :)

Enjoy gpg4win.  Currently it's a great package.

- --
Barry Smith
e bnsmith001 at gmail.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
Comment: Pub Key at http://biglumber.com/x/web?qs=BA649960

iEYEARECAAYFAkomCWgACgkQgOn/hLpkmWBHKgCeK/o6PVvZhoZsif8F5dxbx/mJ
1v0AnR7ZnVbvjuU+/P7QkEWPQZw90955
=ywuU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----