-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Allie,
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 19:27:50 -0500 your time, you said: S>> That's not the point here at all really, although it is a valid point of S>> course. So are you suggesting that The Bat! should not support S/MIME? S>> And are you suggesting or leading up to a banning of S/MIME use on the S>> list? ACM> There's no need to take the discussion in this direction...<snip> Sorry, I don't understand Allie! I simply asked you two further questions which I didn't think were unreasonable questions and certainly can't see how they could have caused you any offense in any way. Nonetheless, if they did offend you in any way then I of course apologize. ACM> Nope. I am simply refuting your comment that 3 extra kilobytes per ACM> S/MIME signed message is negligible. It's by no means negligible when ACM> you look at it cumulatively. And a point I acknowledged. ACM> You mentioned that comparing PGP signatures without including the PGP ACM> key block wasn't fair. That is correct the way I was presenting it. And of course I was trying to show that when bandwidth wasn't a consideration that the actual email size for both technologies was very similar when signed and keyed/certificated; I was attempting to dispel the implication that one technology was significantly superior because it was simply smaller in use than the other, which is not the case at all. Cumulatively, I agree that one *uses* more bandwidth than the other. ACM> How does this translate to S/MIME signatures not being welcome? It was a question Allie, based on your comments: AM> Think of the cummulative bandwidth consumption if everyone were to start AM> using S/MIME as you do, i.e., sending the 3kbyte key block with each and AM> every S/MIME signed message which is every message? <snip> Again, I believe it was a fair question based on your above comments. Your remarks certainly don't encourage the use of S/MIME do they: "Think of the cummulative bandwidth consumption if everyone were to start using S/MIME as you do". I was getting you to clarify your position, that's all. And now you have done that, and so there's no problem is there :) >> If users want to join the list and ask questions about and learn how to >> use S/MIME then I don't think it should be discouraged on the basis of >> bandwidth issues. But if bandwidth really is an issue then you are in a >> real predicament as to ban the use of one method would automatically >> suggest favour toward the other, which people can read in many ways of >> course. ACM> Again, I'm not discouraging or banning the use of it. You're blowing ACM> this Waaay out of proportion. I don't feel that I am blowing anything out of proportion Allie. I am responding to your comments, and some other list users concerns, in this interesting thread about PGP and S/MIME standards, and latterly, the excessive use of bandwidth by using S/MIME on TBUDL. I don't see any problem with this, and I don't think anyone has got nasty, or upset, or there is any reason for you to feel that is is *Waaaay* out of proportion. I do feel that as a moderator when you offer your opinion you cannot expect to be totally detached from your role and as such that you should expect responses such as mine when you indicate personal concerns about "cummulative bandwidth consumption" by users of S/MIME certificates such as me. I am sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable or like you are being got at. - -- Sl�n, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ****************************************** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.62 on W2K SP3 #735. Mila Dress Quo Wry � -----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/AwUBPfvY28tub/5cfolmEQLCmwCgg1LQdGdKeuDSQPVP3qL8X3MxRAUAoN3o Du+8EK60AQodrf3nnN0i1T36 =tb0/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
