Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-27 Thread Christian Dysthe
Hello Nick, Saturday, May 27, 2000, 12:15:17 AM, you wrote: NA> I have two Accounts Christian, and would like to do the same thing, but NA> I've not figured out how, unless someone else has come up with a way. It NA> would be a nice implementation though. NA> Instead, TB! simply PGP clear-signs

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-27 Thread Christian Dysthe
Hello Nick, Saturday, May 27, 2000, 5:25:22 PM, you wrote: NA> Hopefully, PGP will be better implemented in Version 2.0, but until then, NA> it's my feeling that the external PGP implementation, as opposed to the NA> internal, would better accommodate the security concerns of TB! Users. U

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-27 Thread phil
Greetings Nick! On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 18:05:08 GMT -0700 (which was 6:05 PM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: NA> The latest freeware version of PGP is 6.5.3, and PGP Desktop Security 7.0 NA> has already been released, although the freeware version has not. There is NA> no

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-28 Thread phil
Greetings Nick! On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 23:06:07 GMT -0700 (which was 11:06 PM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: p>>> Technically if you want to get down and say that, then I've always p>>> heard that the older the version of pgp (ie. 2.x) are harder to p>>> crack than the new

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-28 Thread phil
Greetings Nick! On Sunday, May 28, 2000 at 10:10:20 GMT -0700 (which was 10:10 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: NA> U... I don't think you can "dismiss such claims" based solely on the NA> Open Source Code. Remember, one point of the argument _for_ obscurity, is NA> that w

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-28 Thread phil
Greetings Nick! On Sunday, May 28, 2000 at 10:18:02 GMT -0700 (which was 10:18 AM where you think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: p>> Although I've spent plenty of time on securityfocus.com I disagree, p>> security through obscurity is not very effective. Look at all the p>> shareware programs

Re[2]: PGP signing question.

2000-05-31 Thread Jamie Dainton
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 */Reply Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:05:08 AM, you wrote: NA> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- NA> Hash: SHA1 NA> On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 4:52:37 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote: CD>> U.why is that? Isn't PGP..eh..PGP? I mean isn't a 1024 key j