[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> > > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with >> > > support for CAST5 would get more into use. [ etc. ] > > On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote: >> > I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe >> > that the recent few years have destroyed the PGP >> > brandname. I think the only worthwhile way forward is to >> > create a cryptographic email standard de novo, which is >> > free of export, trademark, and patent problems. > > On 9 Feb 2002, at 22:36, Lucky Green wrote: >> I believe such a standard already exists. It is called >> S/MIME. Best of all, this email encryption standard is >> supported out-of-the-box by the overwhelming majority of >> deployed MUA's in the world. > > However, to make it work, everyone needs to get officially > blessed keys, and manage those keys.
I believe it would be fruitful to separate the secure email message formats (S/MIME vs PGP/MIME, or perhaps CMS vs OpenPGP) from the key trust mechanism (PKI CA vs PGP web of trust). In theory I cannot see why one decision need to affect the other, they could be orthogonal issues. Perhaps by reading the relevant standards creatively, a mailer sending S/MIME messages but uses a OpenPGP implementation locally is already possible. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
