-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, May 05, 2002, at 10:52:07 AM PST, Lynna Lunsford wrote:
> It is too bad that the MS cryptoAPI is not supported equally through > all versions of TB and other mail clients because it leaves the > smallest "footprint" visually on the email when sent. What I mean to > say is that visually it is the most appealing, less intrusive than > several lines of garbled code,letters, numbers. Hello Lynna, Unfortunately, even though S/MIME signatures leave less of a *visible* footprint on each signed message, it does include a larger *actual* footprint with each message (it sends the public key with each message). Using S/MIME is like using HTML in terms of increasing the number of bytes sent with each message. Many people will find this more annoying than the very small *actual* additional few bytes added by a PGP clear signature. Also - perhaps it's just because I'm familiar with PGP/GnuPG and not with S/MIME, but I find it easier to diagnose possible reasons/solutions to "bad" PGP signatures than I do to "invalid" S/MIME signatures. PGP just doesn't hide as much. For those, and other reasons, I still feel better about PGP/GnuPG than I do about S/MIME. Melissa - -- PGP public keys: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=0xFB04F2E9&Body=Please%20send%20keys -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAjzVeqwACgkQjVbXUvsE8ukmPwCgivRvlQEdP9CQFyHqli/2a63K A2oAnRmF/GtTAZKpvcHTMeZRmpow6me2 =DD// -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60i FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
