Thursday, October 30, 2003
4:02:31 PM
Hi,
When I create a new email, under PRIVACY tab on top ENABLE S/MIME is
always checked. It doesnt work for me. I uncheck it then it by default
is checked again once I create a new email. How do I correct this?
Thanks
--
Darrin
Hi Darrin,
@30-Oct-2003, 16:04 -0800 (31-Oct 00:04 UK time) Darrin [D] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
D Hi, When I create a new email, under PRIVACY tab on top ENABLE
D S/MIME is always checked. ... How do I correct this?
Change it in Account properties | Options.
--
Cheers -- .\\arck D
Hi Marck,
On Thursday at 5:28 PM you wrote (or at least in part):
MDP Change it in Account properties | Options.
Perfect! I I knew it had to be simple. Thanks
--
Darrin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Bat 2.01.3
E=Mc^5...nahhh...E=Mc^4...nahh...E=Mc^3...ah, forget it!
Hello Scott!
On Monday, December 16, 2002 at 3:15:44 AM you wrote:
DH My own position is, we should all sign all our messages and even
DH encrypt it. I am not the one to tell others what is important or not.
I would never tell others what they have to do, but if it ever comes
to this point,
Hello Scott!
On Sunday, December 15, 2002 at 10:48:30 AM you wrote:
Don't get me wrong...I see the point of signing and certificates when
dealing with sensitive data and important Emails, but here?
My own position is, we should all sign all our messages and even
encrypt it. I am not the one
Dierk,
DH My own position is, we should all sign all our messages and even
DH encrypt it. I am not the one to tell others what is important or not.
I would never tell others what they have to do, but if it ever comes
to this point, where everyone *must* sign and encrypt, then you won't
see my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Greg Strong,
On Sunday, April 28 2002 at 09:59 PM PDT, you wrote:
I was installing WinPT. In the PDF file for the install it refers to
OpenPGP that I believe is GPG
No... OpenPGP is a standard which GPG... and PGP... are supposed to
Hello Nick,
Monday, April 29, 2002, 1:49:15 AM, you wrote:
NA Yes, you are right... you can have seamless on the fly signing
NA with PGP because there are specific PGP DLL's that TB uses for
NA that... RITLabs have developed a Plugin specifically for that
NA purpose. Hopefully, the upcoming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Nick,
@29 April 2002, 23:49:15 -0700 (07:49 UK time) Nick Andriash wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To my knowledge I have to use the Tray windows application to
manually sign messages when using GPG.
True, but you can use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marck D Pearlstone [MDP] wrote:
...
Yes, you are right... you can have seamless on the fly signing with
PGP because there are specific PGP DLL's that TB uses for that...
RITLabs have developed a Plugin specifically for that purpose.
Hopefully,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday, April 29, 2002, 5:49 AM, you wrote:
I'm new to both TB and PGP. Would it be any better to install gpg ?
would I gain/lose any TB capabilitites using gpg over PGP6.5.8 ?
thanks,
MDP Not true, actually Nick. I use GPG without any tray
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Cartwright [PC] wrote:
...
PC I'm new to both TB and PGP. Would it be any better to install gpg
PC ? would I gain/lose any TB capabilitites using gpg over PGP6.5.8 ?
Using either GnuPG or PGP will not affect TB!'s capabilities.
If you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Paul,
@29 April 2002, 07:51:38 -0400 (12:51 UK time) Paul Cartwright wrote
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm new to both TB and PGP. Would it be any better to install gpg ?
would I gain/lose any TB capabilitites using gpg over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Allie,
Monday, April 29, 2002, 6:12:18 AM, you wrote:
ACM Indeed the signing and signature verification aspects work nicely. I
ACM don't use GPG Shell for signing messages *at all*. However, for
ACM decryption and encryption I use GPG Shell.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Marck,
Monday, April 29, 2002, 4:49:05 AM, you wrote:
MDP Not true, actually Nick. I use GPG without any tray application. I
MDP only use the try tools to access the key manager and lookup keys I
MDP don't have on my keyring. All
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg Strong [GS] wrote:
...
ACM Indeed the signing and signature verification aspects work
ACM nicely. I don't use GPG Shell for signing messages *at all*.
ACM However, for decryption and encryption I use GPG Shell.
GS Great! How do I make it work?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Greg,
@29 April 2002, 11:50:13 -0500 (17:50 UK time) Greg Strong wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MDP It already exists and works just as well as PGP.
How do I make it work? THANKS!
Use the Tools | OpenPGP | Choose OpenPGP
8
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, 23:57, you wrote
That's however besides the point when you're in need of an
immediately workable solution and not one that will work if and when
you manage to get all other parties involved to install and learn
how to use PGP.
MAU That's one of
Hello Allie,
Saturday, April 27, 2002, 2:11:35 PM, you wrote:
ACM It's not a question of the need being there since he has decided
ACM to use one solution. It's a matter of which is the more
ACM appropriate under the circumstances.
Can you use either method depending upon the individual
with OE and other S/MIME
compliant clients?
You can use S/MIME and PGP interchangeably but where ever the
opportunity presents itself, I think you should go for PGP.
- --
-=Allie C Martin=-
List Moderator | ®TB! v1.60c | Windows XP Pro
PGP/GPG Public Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=2B0717E2
Hello Allie,
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 1:58:08 PM, you wrote:
ACM You can use S/MIME and PGP interchangeably but where ever the
ACM opportunity presents itself, I think you should go for PGP.
I would agree. You have to be able to communicate with whomever under
whatever is agreed upon between
Hello Allie,
Sunday, April 28, 2002, 1:58:08 PM, you wrote:
ACM I'd always use PGP/GnuPG if I could help it.
I was installing WinPT. In the PDF file for the install it refers to
OpenPGP that I believe is GPG (i.e. same as GnuPG at
http://www.gnupg.org/).
What functionality specifically does
8
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, 00:17, you wrote
ACM Today, you'll have to install a stand alone copy of one of the later
ACM versions of PGP or GnuPG in order to meaningfully use it. It's really
ACM not that hard to use, especially PGP 6.5.8 and above.
Yes but what is the point if
Hello Colin!
On Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 9:00:02 AM you wrote:
Yes but what is the point if all the business contacts I e-mail
don't use PGP in any form. How can they check my sig etc?
That's more of a conceptual problem. I usually sign *all* messages
with PGP, if people use it, they
, the Introduction to PGP by
Phil Zimmermann (you can get it on the Internet for free). And then
you have to make up your mind - either use it or not.
BTW, TB! offers the solution to use signing and encrypting (either
with PGP or S/MIME) selectively - defined through macros in templates,
or manually from menu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Colin Grant [CG] wrote:
...
ACM Today, you'll have to install a stand alone copy of one of the later
ACM versions of PGP or GnuPG in order to meaningfully use it. It's really
ACM not that hard to use, especially PGP 6.5.8 and above.
CG Yes but what
8
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, 13:31, you wrote
ACM If you can't make the tool simple to use then no one will use it
ACM especially if it isn't a tool that is perceived as terribly important.
ACM As soon as the typical user meets PGP, they don't wish to learn about
ACM it because of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, April 27, 2002, at 6:54:34 AM PST, Colin Grant wrote:
First, Allie wrote:
As soon as the typical user meets PGP, they don't wish to learn
about it because of the learning curve ... the usual response...
'Why learn all this stuff
to authenticate your identity through mail that's being
sent to people who *do not* use PGP, what's the point of the PGP
signature. An S/MIME one would work though since the main stream
clients support it out of the box and the message is auto-verified
without the users intervention.
Yes, I know about
Hello Allie,
That's however besides the point when you're in need of an
immediately workable solution and not one that will work if and when
you manage to get all other parties involved to install and learn
how to use PGP.
That's one of the reasons why I'll go S/MIME, so I don't have to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:59:09 +0100, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Miguel,
@24 April 2002, 19:18:00 +0200 (18:18 UK time) Miguel A. Urech wrote
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any quick and brief explanation/opinion will be appreciated.
8
On Friday, April 26, 2002, 18:58, you wrote
DH . You are right, other than with S/MIME, PGP has to be installed on
DH both the senders and the recipients computer. What about that lets
DH you shy away?
The answer quite simply is that in the scheme of things hardly
anybody uses PGP
Hello Colin!
On Friday, April 26, 2002 at 7:14:47 PM you wrote:
Is not also true that for PGP to be of any use the recipient must
have PGP installed also? Else they cannot decode/check signature. It
is this aspect that makes me shy away from PGP
1. You are right, other than with S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Colin Grant [CG] wrote:
...
CG For that reason alone I see s/mime as the preferred route, if
CG indeed such a route is really necessary. Or am I missing something
Yes. If you don't use PGP with others then S/MIME is better since you
don't need a web
are right, other than with S/MIME, PGP has to be installed on
both the senders and the recipients computer. What about that lets you
shy away?
I don't think that one can verify S/MIME signed messages when one uses elm
as a mailer, right? Or am I mistaken? Did you mean it was integrated in
Outlook
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mrten [M] wrote:
...
M I don't think that one can verify S/MIME signed messages when one
M uses elm as a mailer, right? Or am I mistaken? Did you mean it was
M integrated in Outlook? (and now also in TB..)
Yes. TB! will verify S/MIME signed messages
Hello Marck, Dierk, Allie,
Marck D Pearlstone wrote:
S/MIME tends to be simpler all round, but getting a certificate from a
recognised authority can be a bit of a chore and there is a 3.5k(ish)
overhead per signature.
Dierk Haasis wrote:
The difference between use of S/MIME and PGP
Hello all,
I know this may be SOT but, anyway, here it goes.
The fact that I am one of those that, more or less seriously or
joking, every now and then complains about the use of PGP signatures
in this list, does not mean that I don't understand the usefulness and
even need of PGP or S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Miguel,
@24 April 2002, 19:18:00 +0200 (18:18 UK time) Miguel A. Urech wrote
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Any quick and brief explanation/opinion will be appreciated.
S/MIME tends to be simpler all round, but getting a
Hello Miguel!
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 7:18:00 PM you wrote:
Any quick and brief explanation/opinion will be appreciated.
The difference between use of S/MIME and PGP is a conceptual one.
S/MIME relies on a centralised signer (certificate issuer), PGP relies
completely on what Phil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Miguel A. Urech [MAU] wrote:
...
MAU I am considering using PGP or S/MIME for some business
MAU correspondence (obviously with TB) and, perhaps because I have
MAU not read enough about either, it is not clear to me what are the
MAU advantages
41 matches
Mail list logo
