On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:35:15 +0100 (BST), Nicholas Cole said:
gpg-1.9, and the thinking behind adding support for
s/mime. What is the roadmap (from the point of view
of users) for gpg?
* The most important task is to integrate gpg 1.4 code base into gpg
1.9. I did this a long time ago but
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:08:37 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface
in order to access none GPLed tokens!
Read the GPL again and you will see that this is not possible.
I have... and did not find the place.
Can you please refer me to
Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
When PGP was invented there WAS NO standard to send and receive signed
and encrypted messages, so PGP have implemented a proprietary method.
Then, PGP tried to propose it as a standard... OpenPGP... But they have
failed... It was not widely adopted...
S/MIME was the
Hello,
You are wrong in this regard: PGP is widely
adpopted (and what is your definition of
the world?). And it makes perfectly sense
to have both worlds.
I won't argue with that...
But the trend is not in favor of PGP.
OpenPGP offers a completely different trust
model which suits the needs
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:30:29 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
Most pkcs#11 stuff is not GPL compatible.
But it does not say that GPLed software cannot use PKCS#11 interface
in order to access none GPLed tokens!
Read the GPL again and you will see that this is not possible.
I am sorry to read
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 18:21:06 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
Yes... But why? What was the reason to work so hard in adding S/MIME?
The answer for my opinion is that IT IS A STANDARD!!!
I am sorry to correct you. No mental sane hacker would voluntary
implement X.509 stupidity. The reason why we
Thank you Olaf,
I see your point regarding PKI, I am familiar with it.
I want to focus the discussion for the smartcard support, this
was my original issue and we then moved to a different
discussion... I have a lot to say in that matter... but first
I will study you documents to understand
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:01:04 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev said:
The disclaimer at http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2133 states
Its is not about the protocol but about the licenses incompatibility
between Mozilla and GPL applications. AFAIK, not everything in
Mozilla has the option to be
