-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Julian,
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:36:28 +0000 your time, you said: JBL> On Saturday, December 14, 2002, 10:16:51 PM, Simon Blake wrote: ACM>>> This is not the case with S/MIME. Can you suppress sending your ACM>>> public key block repeatedly and with every message you send using ACM>>> S/MIME? In fact, this is my main problem with using it. >> That's not the point here at all really, although it is a valid point of >> course. So are you suggesting that The Bat! should not support S/MIME? >> And are you suggesting or leading up to a banning of S/MIME use on the >> list? JBL> What I am suggesting is that S/MIME signing is not necessary in the JBL> context of a discussion list where the identity of the poster is not JBL> important... <snip> I really did understand, and call me stubborn, but I still disagree. The delivery method of S/MIME is different to PGP... and I know that some people see it as 'bandwidth unfriendly', but that's the way it works, and people are going to have to learn to live with it. This is the direction that we are moving in: technologies are using more and more bandwidth as they are developed and increase in popularity. Web boards, newsgroup downloads, graphic intensive sites, flash animations, streaming audio and video, software updates, OS updates, desktop delivery, HTML email, S/MIME, etc. all eat bandwidth, and as we are encouraged to use them the 'system' expands - albeit at a price to those hoping to profit out of it - to accommodate our usage. But we _have already moved_ into the bandwidth intensive era as far as I am concerned, and that is being encouraged via the services being levelled at end users. Therefore the Internet bandwidth argument is just fallacious to me. So, suggesting that it is OK to PGP sign because it is bandwidth friendly and not to S/MIME sign because it isn't flies in the face of the current reality. And to accede to others' requests not to use S/MIME would be an immediate submission to very localized preferences and indicate some lacking in ability or will to keep in tune with the way things are moving. JBL> I feel that you may think that this discussion is an attack on your JBL> rights to use S/MIME or PGP, which it certainly is not, and I am sorry JBL> if I have given you this impression, Simon. No, no need to apologize at all, really :) As I have indicated already, in some way or another, if S/MIME certification died a death tomorrow I wouldn't shed any tears - apart from the fact that I'd lose the ability to be able to communicate with a significant percentage of email users. But my lack of grief _wouldn't_ be based on bandwidth considerations, no, but simply on my *preference* for PGP as I personally find it more suited to my uses...and I value the level of control it affords me. I am not really an advocate of S/MIME in the strictest sense as I would push PGP (and do) before S/MIME any day, but I nonetheless acknowledge S/MIME's current value, and believe that other users should comes to terms with its presence and usage. - -- Sl�n, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ****************************************** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.62 on W2K SP3 #1436. Awl Qed Rio My Ussr � -----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/AwUBPfvGBctub/5cfolmEQL0+gCfc/Cs8/AvtY1WbXmgI/8aLkBGzLwAoJM8 JCCSqTLzmx4ycYA63e0TVu7o =24p9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
