Hi Johannes,
So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument
arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are not as
privileged as you are (and I am) considered internet access costs.
JMP What?! *Priviledged*? I know that in roughly 70% of countries you have
JMP somewhat
Hi Johannes,
JMP Oh come on! What do you use? ISDN? In times of flatrates at 80 DM, I
JMP can only laugh at discussions 'bout "your .sig is longer than 4 lines"
JMP and "2k vs 6k".
So you are a very privileged person. I consider your argument
arrogant and unpolite to those readers here, who are
PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got to
go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!?
Yep :) Personally I'm not having a go at the people who use it
(doesn't look like you are either), especially since S/MIME support is
still early in TB and
Hi Steve,
On Tuesday 08/08/2000 at 14:26, you wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:17:26AM +0100, Deryk Lister wrote:
Not really. S/MIME insists on including the entire certificate,
whilst the PGP version (key) has the nice friendly
download-it-manually method :)
You're joking, right?
Hi Steve,
On Tuesday 08/08/2000 at 16:31, you wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 8:20:58 AM, Deryk wrote:
I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain
everything as well) but they were certainly behind it a lot.
Certainly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Curtis,
Monday, August 07, 2000, 11:13:59 PM, you wrote:
SL If there are any other PMMail people on here I'm sure they would
SL back me up in saying that the interface for PMMail was much more
SL slick and polished than TB!'s is. I'd love to
Greetings Steve!
On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 08:31:54 GMT -0700 (which was 8:31 AM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
SL Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 8:20:58 AM, Deryk wrote:
I don't think Microsoft invented S/MIME (which would explain
everything as well) but they were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Who the hell made that standard!? The consortium of DSL
providersto
get people off modems Yeesh! 41 lines to sign a message!? PGP
does
it in *7*.
I was wondering too... and the extra window is really irritating me!
And I can't find a
Some argue digital signatures don't belong in Public Mailing Lists, yet I
would argue otherwise.
PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got to
go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!?
Yep :) Personally I'm not having a go at the people who use it
SL PGP, GPG signatures are ok. But that travesty called S/MIME has got
SL to go! 2870 bytes to sign something far less than that!?
Yeah, the signatures are too long. Do they really have to be that
long to maintain the desired standard of authentication?
Not really. S/MIME insists on
Hi Nick,
On Monday, August 07, 2000, 5:46 PM, you wrote in part about "Signing
of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)":
N I wonder why PGP itself hasn't implemented a method that
N takes into account the fact some Users have more than one key they
N may wish to encrypt to?
They have, but in
11 matches
Mail list logo
