BTW: Your signature also added ~ 5kB to your message,
which is a 100% overhead. This is probably another reason
not to sign messages using current technologies,
especially if you send a lot of them.

Cheers,
Ed Gerck


Ed Gerck wrote:

> Robert:
>
> You signed the message and this is what your certificate
> says:
>
>    Persona Not Validated
>
> In other words, your signature has no value whatsoever
> and actually is a misleading representation of your persona
> -- since, if it is you, it disallows me to presume so.
>
> There are many other problems with the current model
> of PKI ... and that is why it's not working. For example,
> take a look at what warranties are provided by a CA.
> It looks like you would, probably, be surprised.
>
> Cheers,
> Ed Gerck
> "I am who I say I am"  -- i.e., the same as any PKI signed
> message.
>
> "Robert E. Frank" wrote:
>
> > 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 ..

Reply via email to