On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:55:14 -0500 GMT, Scott McNay wrote: SM> As decribed by Allie, the internal implementation doesn't work for me SM> at all, and I need to use MS Crypto in order to reecognize my own
I take it you are referring solely to S/MIME here? I've come to the conclusion that the internal implementations are best used for a closed environment where keeping up with the world isn't required. ..which leads me to my next question, my guess is that Secure Bat! or Authentic Bat! would be no different -- RFC-1991 internal PGP and same issues with S/MIME? I've really not any practical use for any of the certificate options it just a neat widget in there that I would like to geek with. :-) Sounds like the worst case is if I use the RFC-1991 that I won't be able to verify most of the PGP sigs and if I were to want to use the ciphers to exchange email then the other party would have to jump a couple hoops so that I could properly decode from them. Aside from that most everyone would be able to read my RFC-1991 sigs and decrypt from me? Heh! I am using W95 after all.. may as well go all out and stay in the 20th century with PGP. :-) Pixie -- Using The Bat! v2.0 Beta/4 on Windows 95 4.0 ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
