|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
Is Encyption really this useless?
One might think some government employees and corporate employees would need encrypted e-mail, especially to some foreign countries. What effect has proxy servers on certificates & keys? Encryption & Signing are buttons clearly available to Apple Mail users, so they will want to know about these.
Encryption usually comes with email authentication, often from CAcert.org, in light of the demise of Thawte. (The email authentification of ip addresses is depricated because of spoofing; but the inability to reply would seem to protect the sender, and accepting only mail from those written should protect others.)
People might like to know where to look in their mailing agent's 'Prefereces' for security certificate authorities. My Thunderbird on Ubuntu Linux doesn't have CAcert.org, but it does have dozens of others, though I see no PGP keys (as I did on a MacOSX). Practical matters, such as validating & revocing certificates are of great interest. Which authorities are reputable, and provide free public & private keys for encryption?
RfC concerning the Lavabit email service
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
- Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.
List of clients
My point is that if you keep the list "short" then it's necessarily an arbitrary selection of clients. If you try to be thorough then the list becomes too long to be useful. I think it's preferable to remove the list and have neither of these problems. In addition, such lists tend to invite list creep, as people recognize that their favorite choice isn't represented and add it, turning it into a long list.
Just to nitpick wrt "state wiki policy forbidding it", not every edit or reversal needs to be backed up by policy — just like you didn't need a policy to support your addition. Making a rational argument is sufficient. But WP:NOTHOWTO is a relevant one, the purpose of Wikipedia is to state facts, not to "[benefit] users who want to decide which standard and client to use".