>> 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
(doesn't look like you are either), especially since S/MIME support is
still early in TB and needs to be tested. The thing that bugs me is
that it exists to start with :) It's just an extra standard for
Microsoft to build into everything, and there are far better
equivalents (PGP,GPG) around.
PGP is fine for mailing lists... takes up almost nothing.
It's @045 already... bed time this side of the world :)
--
Deryk Lister || ICQ 25869912 || www.deryk.co.uk
Using The Bat! 1.46 Beta/2 under Windows NT 5.0
Build 2195 Service Pack 1 on a PentiumII-400 with 128MB
PGP: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Retr%20PGP%20Key
Any of my keys _under_ 3072 bit (usually on keyservers) don't work.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
