-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
*/Reply
Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:05:08 AM, you wrote:
NA> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
NA> Hash: SHA1
NA> On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 4:52:37 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote:
CD>> U.why is that? Isn't PGP..eh..PGP? I mean isn't a 1024 key
j
Hello phil,
On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:28:16 -0700 GMT your local time,
which was Monday, May 29, 2000, 1:28:16 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
phil wrote:
> Greetings Nick!
> I look at it this way
> If they say they aren't--they ARE.
> If they say it isn't--it IS.
> If they say they don't--they DO.
>
Hello Tom Plunket,
On Sun, 28 May 2000 00:33:44 -0700 GMT your local time,
which was Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:33:44 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Tom Plunket wrote:
> http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/pgpfaq.html#SubDSSSubliminal
So who checked the MS double key system (g)??
Interesting reading...
Hello Tom Plunket,
On Sun, 28 May 2000 00:33:44 -0700 GMT your local time,
which was Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:33:44 PM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Tom Plunket wrote:
NA>> Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to be more
NA>> secure, but there is also value in security throu
Greetings Nick!
On Sunday, May 28, 2000 at 10:18:02 GMT -0700 (which was 10:18 AM
where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
p>> Although I've spent plenty of time on securityfocus.com I disagree,
p>> security through obscurity is not very effective. Look at all the
p>> shareware programs
Greetings Nick!
On Sunday, May 28, 2000 at 10:10:20 GMT -0700 (which was 10:10 AM
where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
NA> U... I don't think you can "dismiss such claims" based solely on the
NA> Open Source Code. Remember, one point of the argument _for_ obscurity, is
NA> that w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, May 28, 2000, 5:56:58 AM, phil wrote:
p> Although I've spent plenty of time on securityfocus.com I disagree,
p> security through obscurity is not very effective. Look at all the
p> shareware programs that get cracked because of that beli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, May 28, 2000, 1:24:27 AM, Johannes M. Posel wrote:
JMP> But you remember the discussion on PGP-Users about my governments
JMP> claims against PGP in favour of OpenPGP and a possible NAI/NSA
JMP> "friendship"? While with Open Source, you ca
Greetings Nick!
On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 23:06:07 GMT -0700 (which was 11:06 PM
where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
p>>> Technically if you want to get down and say that, then I've always
p>>> heard that the older the version of pgp (ie. 2.x) are harder to
p>>> crack than the new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Servus Nick,
Am 28.05.2000 so gegen 08:06 meintest Du:
> Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to
> be more secure, but there is also value in security through
> obscurity. :o)
But you remember the discussion on PGP-Users about my g
NA> Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to be more
NA> secure, but there is also value in security through obscurity. :o)
Although there may be corporate value in obscurity, I have a hard time
accepting that at a personal level. Sure, nobody is supposed to know
what th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 8:38:53 PM, Gary wrote:
p>> Technically if you want to get down and say that, then I've always
p>> heard that the older the version of pgp (ie. 2.x) are harder to
p>> crack than the newer windows versions. I can't remember
Hi Phil,
On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 10:20:43 PM, you wrote in part about "PGP
signing question.":
p> Technically if you want to get down and say that, then I've always
p> heard that the older the version of pgp (ie. 2.x) are harder to
p> crack than the newer windows ver
Greetings Nick!
On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 18:05:08 GMT -0700 (which was 6:05 PM
where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
NA> The latest freeware version of PGP is 6.5.3, and PGP Desktop Security 7.0
NA> has already been released, although the freeware version has not. There is
NA> no
On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 3:24:42 PM, Chuck Mattsen wrote:
> I'm sure there are reasons of which I'm simply unaware, but why cannot
> one simply have their multiple addresses on *one* key? Why the need
> for multiple keys?
Although PGP allows for more than one User name or E-Mail address for u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 4:52:37 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote:
CD> U.why is that? Isn't PGP..eh..PGP? I mean isn't a 1024 key just as
CD> secure implemented in The Bat! as used from an external application? I am
CD> not expert, maybe I have m
Hello Nick,
Saturday, May 27, 2000, 5:25:22 PM, you wrote:
NA> Hopefully, PGP will be better implemented in Version 2.0, but until then,
NA> it's my feeling that the external PGP implementation, as opposed to the
NA> internal, would better accommodate the security concerns of TB! Users.
U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 3:13:43 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote:
> I see you use an "external" PGP
> implementation. It wouldn't be that the internal PGP implementation in
> The Bat! can do this? I am now pretty sure it can't after having
> looked in e
On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 5:13 PM or thereabouts, Christian Dysthe
wrote the following about PGP signing question.:
Christian> You are right though, in these multi mail account times
Christian> when even your average ISP gives you a few aliases this
Christian> functionality woul
Hello Nick,
Saturday, May 27, 2000, 12:15:17 AM, you wrote:
NA> I have two Accounts Christian, and would like to do the same thing, but
NA> I've not figured out how, unless someone else has come up with a way. It
NA> would be a nice implementation though.
NA> Instead, TB! simply PGP clear-signs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, May 26, 2000, 8:33:43 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote:
> I have different PGP keys for different mail accounts. Is it way to have
> The Bat! sign with a specified key based on which account mail is sent
> from?
I have two Accounts Christian, a
Hello TBUDL,
I have different PGP keys for different mail accounts. Is it way to
have The Bat! sign with a specified key based on which account mail
is sent from?
--
Best regards,
Christian Dysthe
http://christian.dysthe.tripod.com
ICQ: 3945810
PGP Public Key:
22 matches
Mail list logo
