[29646] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PGP kerserver infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (L. Sassaman)
Sat Jul 1 06:01:15 2000
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 02:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net>
To: Michael Helm <helm@fionn.es.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, pgp-keyserver-folk@flame.org
In-Reply-To: <200006302147.OAA02761@fionn.es.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.QNWS_2.0007010256130.14472-100000@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, Michael Helm wrote:
> "L. Sassaman" writes:
> > X.509 is a much older and cruftier standard. PGP is recognised by most to
> > be the superior method for handling email and file encryption and signing.
> > X.509 is designed to satisfy situations where there is a complex heirarchy
> > in an X.500 setting.
>
> I don't know about the first claim; PGP certainly developed partly
> in response to PEM, which was based on hierarchies. Which standard is better
> I think is up to customers to decide.
I think customers *have* decided. Where is PEM now? (And Phil Z. wasn't
aware of the existance of PEM until very shortly before he released PGP,
btw.)
- --Len.
__
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.
iD8DBQE5XcDFPYrxsgmsCmoRAgEYAJ9Lhxvy2v1Pm6BWMqOEdCz04shIswCg8nBT
A7xQbEKRW8/ZFr3vGc/I5Qs=
=RJ5B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
