[sugar] xomail

[Joshua N Pritikin]

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.