Hello Wiktor. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 20:14 +0100 schrieb Wiktor Kwapisiewicz: > On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote:
> Do you mean X.509 is technically good or just more widely supported > in software than OpenPGP? For me there are only few cases where X.509 > infrastructure has something that OpenPGP lacks (e.g. timestamping). I prefer GPG. And no, GPG does not lack timestamping, a timestamp is included in every signature. X.509 is more widely spread. I think this is the only reason that it is preferred by some users. I would like to see GPG to be more widely used. For me, x.509 is not more trustworthy than GPG, I trust this system and the signed certificate less in many cases. The signature regulations in the EU are not the best. In the US, I read, ebven PGP is approved in some states. They use it even vor notary approvals. We had a thread describing this a few months ago. The only thing is, that GPG can not do inline signing of PDFs. This would be a nice feature, but, AFAIK the standard for PDF doesn't leave us this option. Regards, Dirk -- Dirk Gottschalk Paulusstrasse 6-8 52064 Aachen, Germany GPG: DDCB AF8E 0132 AA54 20AB B864 4081 0B18 1ED8 E838 Keybase.io: https://keybase.io/dgottschalk GitHub: https://github.com/Dirk1980ac
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
