> > > No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
> > ^
> > a hash of
> > > place as the private key, at the same time.
> > I've seen people *who operate CAs* lose sight of the fact that it's
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:35:52 CST, Matt Crawford said:
> > > The question of a global PKI is to remove anonymity. You can trace back
> > > to a real person (legal person) from the certificate. Who can offer
> >
> > No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
>
> > The question of a global PKI is to remove anonymity. You can trace back
> > to a real person (legal person) from the certificate. Who can offer
>
> No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
^
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:38:50 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> The question of a global PKI is to remove anonymity. You can trace back
> to a real person (legal person) from the certificate. Who can offer
No. You can trace back to the fact that the signed data was at the same
place as the private key,
On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 03:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:17:29 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Note that you can set your exchange server to convert s/mime messages
> automatically... On my exchange 5.5 in the Internet connector there is an
This is, of course, assuming y
ng on it...
>
> Cheers.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gary Lawrence Murphy [mailto:garym@;canada.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 11:19
> > To: Franck Martin
> > Cc: 'TOMSON ERIC'; '[EMAIL
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:17:29 +1200, Franck Martin said:
> Note that you can set your exchange server to convert s/mime messages
> automatically... On my exchange 5.5 in the Internet connector there is an
This is, of course, assuming you are willing or able to use an exchange server.
Not all the w
> "F" == Franck Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
F> ...Anyone who sends me e-mail can be identified. Anything I
F> send can be traced to me. People wouldn't be forced to
F> participate, but if they remain anonymous, I might choose to
F> block them. I certainly wouldn't accept
Title: Message
As
this thread is becoming more and more technical, may I suggest to limit it from
now on to the IETF list and then to stop cc:ing the ISDF
list...
-Original Message-From: Franck Martin
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I agree with you, I found many more applicatio
Title: RE: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
I agree with you, I found many more applications that
do not support s/mime cf SSL-Certificates HOWTO on www.tldp.org.
However, you can sign messages in s/mime clear text,
which works the same as PGP by encapsulating the message in clear inside a
Title: RE: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
MS promises S/MIME support in their next release, which would be Dec or Mar or Jun or... Currently, Outlook Web Access doesn't "know" S/MIME, so certificate use is not possible. It is possible to read a signed email and to retrieve
Cheers.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gary Lawrence Murphy [mailto:garym@;canada.com]
> Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 11:19
> To: Franck Martin
> Cc: 'TOMSON ERIC'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: [isdf] RE: Palladium (TCP/MS)
>
> Isn't that PGP?
>
At 08:40 AM 10/22/2002 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Again, other big organizations (specifically including Cisco) are not
above embracing-and-extending out of ignorance, provincialism, and
failures to bother to do interoperability testing (possible causes of
the Microsoft PPP hassles) if not mal
13 matches
Mail list logo
