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 including the entire certificate,
whilst the PGP version (key) has the nice friendly
download-it-manually method :)
Suppose S/MIME is handy for sending to lazy OE users who don't
download PGP to check things with, but in general I trust PGP and GPG
far more and generally like them...
(reason I trust the latter: they aren't heavily backed by big
corporates. I wonder if AOL is in there with S/MIME? If so, they
probably have a back door in place already)
Soon as GPG for Win32 gets a decent interface, I'll switch to that :)
Open Source encryption techniques (GPG) are debatable, but I prefer to
see what they're up to.
--
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]
