-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Costas,
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:17:03 +0200 your time, you said: MR>>> If I choose "Internal Implementation", your S/MIME signatures verify as MR>>> "valid". If, however, I choose the "Microsoft CryptoAPI" implementation MR>>> of S/MIME, your very same message returns a verification of "invalid". >> As I have said, not for me. CP> Excuse for interjecting here, not having read this thread from the CP> beginning. The beginning is usually a good place to start :) CP> I would like to mention that my experience is the same as Melissa's CP> regarding the above point. Surely, inconsistent results detract a lot CP> from the reliability of S/MIME as a security system. In the nicest possible way, and without meaning to be provocative at all, if you'd read the whole thread you may have followed my reasoning for replying as I did...I am not claiming that my views are any better than Melissa's. They are just my views of course, and nothing more. In reply to you I would say that I don't see S/MIME as being any more inconsistent than PGP, from my experience of both. And when we are talking generally like this, and the reference for our bias seems to be new users to The Bat! (TBUDL) and new users of S/MIME, I don't see how there can be fair criticism. If on the other hand S/MIME can be shown to suffer from this inconsistency in most S/MIME compliant applications then I would probably concede. However, as far as I am aware S/MIME is taken up because of it's simplicity and ease, and it's availability, and the fact that it's use doesn't require third party software. I don't see any evidence beyond this small, isolated discussion, indicating that S/MIME is renowned for being less reliable than PGP, and nor do I believe that a few people having problems with/not understanding how to use certificates in a small user group is fair evidence of S/MIME's unreliability. - From reading various pgp related news groups regularly I am aware of many of the problems that pgp users have setting up and using PGP... problems with initial compatibility/understanding at the user end. They are no different to S/MIME users in that respect. In many respects S/MIME has an advantage, even if I much personally prefer PGP. - -- Sl�n, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ****************************************** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.62 on W2K SP3 #715. Sea World Squirmy � -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your freedom with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPfs6zMtub/5cfolmEQJjYACdEY/rLQAgD/LFLT0ILX5e7CFu9LIAoJTr BB1pKJgLZJEmLAC0kTvUj1Rr =1Kwt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
