On Saturday, March 14, 2015, stef <[1]s@ctrlc.hu> wrote:

     On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 05:23:16AM +0000, David Leon Gil wrote:
     > Like it being incompetently designed?
     depends what the intended goal of said software is:
     1/ winning a battle in the 1st cryptowars to make crypto exportable?
     i think
     it brilliantly succeeded at this design goal.
     2/ making cryptograms stand out as strong selectors thanks to all
     this juicy
     plaintext metadata in the openpgp packet as defined per rfc4880.
     again, a
     smashing success.
     maybe if your usecase is not covered by the above two, maybe you
     should be
     looking for another solution. people-with-hammers ;)

   Fortunately, my goals do not include either of those. :) And I think my
   comment was somewhat unfair: The original OpenPGP standard was well
   thought out (but ultimately insecure). It just became a horrifying with
   three more major versions.

   As this is cypherpunks: I wish more folks were working on making
   steganography for encrypted mail more practical. It seems, for example,
   entirely feasible, to encode encrypted mail as (nonsense but
   grammatical) sentences in the user's language. I would be happy to
   deploy a proposal that accomplished something like this with < ~25%
   overhead, which seems doable, but hard.

   (This is something that will be essential for users in countries like
   China...)

References

   1. mailto:s@ctrlc.hu