[17060] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: $90 for high assurance _versus_ $349 for low assurance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (R.A. Hettinga)
Tue Mar 15 10:33:12 2005
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <42320C72.7060102@systemics.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:15:13 -0500
To: Ian G <iang@systemics.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com>
Cc: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, mozilla-security@mozilla.org
At 9:24 PM +0000 3/11/05, Ian G wrote:
>Does anyone have a view on what "low" and "high" means in this
>context? Indeed, what does "assurance" mean?
:-)
By what market price, of course.
Verisign is more well known to the average schmuck than godaddy is, and,
apparently, the average schmuck forks over the ducats accordingly.
The fact that they're currently fungible commodities, ungraded ones at
that, only makes the pricing outcome more, um, interesting, if, for the
moment, okay, not predictable, :-), but, what, apprehendable by common
sense, at least in 20-20 ex post facto hindsight?
Cheers,
RAH
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
