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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hey Wolfgang ^:)
Am 10.08.2000 so gegen 09:30 meintest Du:
So you insist in beeing unpolite to the remaining 30% ?
What you call "Internet" in the remaining 30% ist nor what we
understand under the termn "Internet".
This has always been a list for people
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Grüß Dich Wolfgang,
Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 14:12 meintest Du:
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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi there Steve,
Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 17:31 meintest Du:
Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when
they implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP
implementation.
While PGP is the de-fecto
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?
OTH, PGP 6.5.1.i is a 8.1mb
Hi there Thomas,
Am 08.08.2000 so gegen 05:28 meintest Du:
Well, not quite. While I don't pay online time while I'm in the office
(connected through the LAN), I have to pay per-minute when I am at
home. So, I do care if message are 6K instead of 2K big, especially on
mailing lists.
Oh come
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
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Tuesday, August 08, 2000, Wolfgang Kynast wrote to Johannes M. Posel about
Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules):
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 l
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? That has GOT to be a joke. Who the hell would make
a
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 08:45:12AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTH, PGP 6.5.1.i is a 8.1mb download (i just did) and needs 15mb of hard
disk space ...
a S/MIME certificate is a couple of 100 bytes and just imports into the
address book. just sayin' ... it all depends on wether you got
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?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 7:43:44 AM, David wrote:
would not only need to download that persons key to check their
signature, but you would also need to phone them or something, to
check if the key really belongs to them. How many people here
-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 reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when
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
Hello Deryk,
Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 5:42:34 PM, you wrote to Steve Lamb:
DL Hi Steve,
snip
Certainly reason right there to ignore it. WTF was RIT thinking when they
implemented it? That energy should have been put into a decent PGP
implementation.
I wholeheartedly agree.
DL
-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
Hi Graham,
On Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 12:07 PM, you wrote in part about
"Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)":
G I disagree about PGP implementation: it seems to me that PGP
G messages should be seen to be the same in all e-mail clients, as
G though the client was
How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have
exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it.
--
Best regards,
Tonymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--
View the TBUDL
Hi Tony,
On 08 August 2000 at 18:50:29 GMT +0100 (which was 18:50 where I
live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject
of "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)":
TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have
TG exported it
Greetings Tony!
On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 18:50:29 GMT +0100 (which was 10:50 AM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have
TG exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it.
Don't feel
Greetings Gary!
On Tuesday, August 08, 2000 at 12:41:47 GMT -0500 (which was 10:41 AM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
G Hi Graham,
G On Tuesday, August 08, 2000, 12:07 PM, you wrote in part about
G "Signing of Messages (Was: Re: List server rules)":
G I disa
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
On August 8, 2000, at 6:04:17 PM, phil Wrote:
TG How does one use S/Mime in TheBat? I've got a certificate and have
TG exported it to TheBat directory but still don't seem able to use it.
p Don't feel bad, it doesn't work here either.
Phil, not being able to figure out how to use it, and _not
On August 7, 2000, at 10:27:38 AM, Mark Aston Wrote:
Actually it's the S/MIME that makes the message 6K or thereabouts, the
PGP doesn't make much difference.
Whilst it was a new feature and being tested on TBBETA it was OK, now
I find the attachments quite irritating for use on a mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 07, 2000, 1:22:24 PM, Nick wrote:
On August 7, 2000, at 10:27:38 AM, Mark Aston Wrote:
Actually it's the S/MIME that makes the message 6K or thereabouts, the
PGP doesn't make much difference.
Whilst it was a new feature and being
On August 7, 2000, at 1:46:45 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote:
SL I only recently started using PGP in TB! because I decided it was
SL time start showing my beliefs in the wake of Carnivore news. Geez,
SL is it ever a /PAIN/ to use compared to when I was using PGP on
SL PMMail2000Pro.
What were some of
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 07, 2000, 1:59:52 PM, Nick wrote:
What were some of the features inherent in the way PMMail2000Pro
implemented PGP, that are missing in TB!'s implementation?
Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a
Hi Nick,
Monday, August 07, 2000, 9:22:24 PM, you wrote:
NA Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in
NA the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an
NA attachment by TB!? What if a small innocuous icon was to be put inside
NA the Message
On August 7, 2000, at 2:11:30 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote:
SL Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a
SL PGP message and a normal message side by side you'd not see the dash
SL escaping, the PGP block marking and so on),
The only Client I've used that automatically checks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On August 7, 2000, at 3:06:23 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote:
SL I send mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED], I do not want it
SL encrypted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Encrypting to a default key is a lazy
SL man's way out of a very simple problem.
But isn't that a product
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 13:46:45 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL Nick, if I might take a stab at this, I think when he said it taking
SL up 6k that he might actually have meant that having it take up 6k is
SL annoying. To me, that would be annoying to. What is even more
SL annoying is that I can't /see/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 07, 2000, 3:16:02 PM, Nick wrote:
But isn't that a product of PGP... requiring a default key... and not
that of the Mail Client. I know of no way around that. How does PMMail
allow you to choose which of your keys you want your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Monday, August 07, 2000, 3:08:44 PM, Curtis wrote:
I much prefer how S/MIME signing is implemented in TB! compared to
PGP.
Which is how PMMail2k Pro does it. A small indication on the status line
is all you ever see unless you request
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:11:30 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
SL Hash: SHA1
The above simply doesn't and shouldn't be shown in a PGP signed
message. :-(
SL Automatic signature checking, the PGP information hidden (viewing a
SL PGP message and a normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On August 7, 2000, at 3:33:30 PM, Steve Lamb Wrote:
But isn't that a product of PGP... requiring a default key... and not
that of the Mail Client. I know of no way around that. How does PMMail
allow you to choose which of your keys you want your
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Nick Andriash wrote:
So are you saying that PMMail's PGP plug-in (or whatever method they
use) presents you with a drop down list of Keys to encrypt your replies
to so that you can read those replies later on?
No, it encodes to the Key ID assigned
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?
Hi Nick,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:46:34 -0700GMT (08/08/2000, 06:46 +0800GMT),
Nick Andriash wrote:
NA So are you saying that PMMail's PGP plug-in (or whatever method they
NA use) presents you with a drop down list of Keys to encrypt your replies
NA to so that you can read those replies later on?
Hi Mark,
On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 22:20:37 +0100GMT (08/08/2000, 05:20 +0800GMT),
Mark Aston wrote:
NA Mark, I'm curious why they irritate you? Is it the fact they show up in
NA the attachment bar, even though technically they are not treated as an
NA attachment by TB!? What if a small innocuous icon
43 matches
Mail list logo
