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> Probably down to the idea that everyone already has S/MIME built into
DL> OE, and it's at least better than nothing. It's been proven that
DL> people would rather stick with lesser quality built-in stuff than
DL> take the effort to download the nicer alternatives, which is what
DL> seeded the MS/DoJ thing.
IMHO "lesser quality" privacy is an oxymoron.
Also, Microsoft has a track record of spying on its users. Like
quietly sending data on applications installed on your box back to MS
(proved for Win95) through storing *personal* data of the last 10
persons editing a WinWord document *in the document file* (proved for
WinWord 6 thru 9).
Now why would any privacy-conscious person trust MS with safeguarding
his/her privacy?
DL> Given the choice between sending a mail plain (say about an Ebay item,
DL> which is where it's a little more useful) or sending it S/MIME signed
DL> I'd rather it was at least capable of the latter. It's better than
DL> nothing... much as I wish MS would build PGP into Windows one day.
They will do that as soon as as they are confident that they can
decipher it, not before. S/MIME they can probably handle...
--
Best regards,
Istv�n
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]
