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.
Ummmm.....why is that? Isn't PGP..eh..PGP? I mean isn't a 1024 key just as
secure implemented in The Bat! as used from an external application? I am
not expert, maybe I have missed something?
Besides that, the built in PGP is so easy to use and set up I think a
lot more users will be able to use it than the external alternatives.
Which is...yes! would accommodate security for more The Bat!users. Some
security is better than none, right? :)
NA> Nick
NA> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
NA> Version: PGP 6.5.3
NA> Comment: Digitally signed to allow for authentication by recipient.
NA> iQA/AwUBOTBLUMUChHR7o/3OEQKMkgCgsJFXgZOPqwS8aWjRy3mMvW7oJ+EAnR3H
NA> qq+riMzhTLKmwp0HDpZYR5eK
NA> =yYaO
NA> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Best regards,
Christian Dysthe
http://christian.dysthe.tripod.com
ICQ: 3945810
PGP Public Key:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Send_PGP_Key
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
