Normally, I prefer to lurk and observe, but this posting prompts me to ask: Why does Verisign NOT use it own products in the conduct of its daily email business?
No doubt we have all received hundreds of messages from various Verisign units during the past few years. Have you ever seen one signed with a Verisign certificate? I have not. When you ask Verisign managers why they do not sign their email, do you get a responsive reply? I never have. Is the use of PKI-signed email too expensive and too complex for use by the rank and file for "normal business operations"? I don't think so. Is it possible that Verisign's Marketing VP and CEO are unaware of the potential global branding benefits if every Verisign email was signed? And, am I wrong in believing that Verisign's marketing failure could be seriously degrading the market acceptance of all digital signatures? Robert Frank Pleasanton, California www.opencommerce.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internet-payments" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:50 PM Subject: Invisible Ink, E-signatures slow to broadly catch on > ..snip.. > LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) -The advent of electronic signatures heralded a new > age in online commerce -- a numeric code to replace an individual's > handwriting to register agreement. > > Yet since President Clinton signed the Electronic Signature Act over two > years ago (see related story), indications are few companies are taking > full advantage. While little hard data exists, consumers have been slow to > embrace the technology due to fear of fraud and a lack of understanding, > experts said. > .. snip ..
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
