North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: PGP kerserver infrastructure
- From: L. Sassaman
- Date: Fri Jun 30 16:05:11 2000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 01:07:18 PDT, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" said:
> > It is not an issue of right/wrong. Rather, it is an issue of what
> > is most usable to the most people. SSL certs are certainly more
> > usable to many. PGP works with ancient CLI mailers and older GUI
> > mailers. All modern GUI mailers support X.509 keys for message
>
> All modern GUI? Odd.. I didn't add X.509 to Exmh yet. ;)
>
> Eudora 4.3, which certainly qualifies as "modern GUI" doesn't seem to
> come with X.509 support, although it does come with a PGP plugin bundled.
> If there *is* X.509 support, feel free to point it at me.
>
> I know Netscape seems to support pcks-7 signatures, and I'm unsure what
> Outlook supports.
As of yet, there is no PGP support in Netscape. Outlook and Outlook
Express both have plugins for PGP.
> Popularity reducing? Didn't I just see where the keyservers are seeing
> an additional 2,500 keys *per day*? Given the 1M keys they say they
> have currently, I work that out to 7.5% growth *PER MONTH*. Not bad
> for popularity reducing...
Yep.
X.509 is definately better suited for certain situations, especially where
certificate chaining is required. I cannot, however, envision that the
X.509/-slash-S/MIME standards will ever become more popular for email
usage. They are just too anti-user.
__
L. Sassaman
System Administrator |
Technology Consultant | "Common sense is wrong."
icq.. 10735603 |
pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Practical C Programming
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
iD8DBQE5XPmrPYrxsgmsCmoRArVUAKCjbSHdoA7pi1fp3zsFwk9eKs19gQCfV9iG
K3RplHx1r4V8b30ElNkA5zc=
=bAdp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
