PGP & GPG compatibility

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
Werner Koch writes:
> >  > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with 
> >  > support for CAST5 would get more into use.  [ etc. ]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe 
> > that the recent few years have destroyed the PGP 
> > brandname.  I think the only worthwhile way forward is to 
> > create a cryptographic email standard de novo, which is 
> > free of export, trademark, and patent problems.

On 9 Feb 2002, at 22:36, Lucky Green wrote:
> I believe such a standard already exists. It is called 
> S/MIME. Best of all, this email encryption standard is 
> supported out-of-the-box by the overwhelming majority of 
> deployed MUA's in the world.

However, to make it work, everyone needs to get officially 
blessed keys, and manage those keys.  The authorized central 
authorities not oppressive.  One is free to get a 
pseudonymous certificate that merely testifies to one's 
control of an email address, for example 
jamesd50 at hushmail.com

But, alas, I have never encountered a non engineer 
successfully doing that, even though the interface is 
designed for idiots and attempts to hide what is going on. 
The hiding, however, merely makes things harder, not easier, 
and idiots somehow always fail, even if they are the kind of 
idiot who gets to be Chairman of the Board, who usually
display a fair bit of intelligence in other matters. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     JookN8yKLh3sJeIJIvdMGKG+ThURka7fVNj1bCnj
     4v4v8BJBaV13nPC/qC6tGXZiLR5NPjE1thes5z/Bp


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com