[29633] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PGP kerserver infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (L. Sassaman)
Fri Jun 30 15:48:37 2000
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net>
To: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'Albert Levi'" <levi@ece.orst.edu>,
"'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>,
"'Adrian Chadd'" <adrian@creative.net.au>, nanog@merit.edu,
pgp-keyserver-folk@flame.org
In-Reply-To: <000401bfe26a$36ac5e60$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.QNWS_2.0006301239170.9924-100000@thetis.deor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> It is not an issue of right/wrong. Rather, it is an issue of what
Actually, it is. You are wrong.
> 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
> encryption and even let you use the same cert for SSL protected
> POP3. PGP, OTOH, only encrypts the message body, this is why it's
Ever heard of PGP/MIME? Look at RFC 2015.
> popularity is reducing. In addition, even you agree that an X.509
> PKI is easier to build. Maybe because of the reasons I give here.
Most of the encrypted traffic on the Internet is PGP traffic. Methinks you
are a tad confused.
__
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.
iD8DBQE5XPfIPYrxsgmsCmoRAmOPAJ9gaRntflX5w2G085BcArP9vexjUgCgzzK2
/fZGCAFP82LBsuCbUhaB97k=
=Wpcp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
