Hello Ed, So, from your two messages, should I conclude that you think Verisign products are of no potential value and that SMIME is a waste of time? Do you know of a better way to protect MIME messages?
BTW: It would be a surprise to find out that Verisign is not using its own PKI for email because it adds at least 5kB to each message. Do you really think that is a critical consideration in today's email environment? Robert Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Gerck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert E. Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internet-payments" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: btw, Re: Invisible Ink, E-signatures slow to broadly catch on > > 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 .. >
