Hello Mandara, Sunday, May 5, 2002, 1:30:56 PM, you digitally penned the following;
M> Hash: SHA1 M> On Sat, 4 May 2002, at 08:53:00 -0500 Michael wrote: MD>> I can confirm this. I've tried reading a message originated from MD>> Outlook and TheBat! 1.60c. The implementations are mutually MD>> incompatible. So much so, that Outlook will not even recognize that MD>> the message from TB! was even signed. The behaviors are consistent MD>> with 1.53d, 1.60c, and 1.60h. MD>> This leaves the question, do we need to buckle under to MS to get MD>> S/MIME to work? M> As I see things, we don't at all. We *already* have S/MIME even without M> M$. <snip> Forgive me if this has been covered previously but If I choose to use the Internal SMIME signing feature.... There are a few additional configuration options available. Which should I be using? ENCRYPTION algorithm ( available choices ) 3DES (156 bit) IDEA (128 bit) RC2 (128 bit) SIGNING algorithm ( available choices) SHA1 (160 bit) MD5 (128 bit) And isn't the purpose of signing a message to prove that it actually came from you - as opposed to the purpose of encrypting a message ( keeping the content FYEO( private ). Therefore would it not be appropriate to sign all messages but only encrypt those where the content is sensitive ? Final question, if I then use the internal SMIME with whatever configuration options this list deems as appropriate will the list members then all be able to read smime signed messages without difficulty? -- Regards, Lynna mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat!1.60j Windows XP PGP ( Public ) Key available at www.apostolic-friends.net/pgpkey.htm ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60i FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug Reports: https://bt.ritlabs.com
