On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 22:32 US/Eastern, bear wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
It's rather efficient if you want to sign a large number of keys of
people you mostly do not know personally.
Right, but remember that knowing people personally was supposed
to be part of
On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 00:36 US/Eastern, Ian Grigg wrote:
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 00:22, Jeroen van Gelderen wrote:
On Monday, Mar 24, 2003, at 22:32 US/Eastern, bear wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
It's rather efficient if you want to sign a large number of keys
On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 02:20 US/Eastern, Ed Gerck wrote:
Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
1. Presently 1% of Internet traffic is protected by SSL against
MITM and eavesdropping.
2. 99% of Internet traffic is not protected at all.
I'm sorry, but no. The bug in MSIE, that prevented the
On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 13:55 US/Eastern, Ed Gerck wrote:
Jeroen van Gelderen wrote:
Heu? I am talking about HTTPS (1) vs HTTP (2). I don't see how the
MSIE
bug has any effect on this.
Maybe we're talking about different MSIE bugs, which is not hard to do
;-)
I am NOT talking about MSIE
On Tuesday, Mar 25, 2003, at 14:38 US/Eastern, Ed Gerck wrote:
Jeroen van Gelderen wrote:
3. A significant portion of the 99% could benefit from
protection against eavesdropping but has no need for
MITM protection. (This is a priori a truth, or the
traffic would be secured with SSL
