-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Miguel,
@24 April 2002, 19:18:00 +0200 (18:18 UK time) Miguel A. Urech wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Any quick and brief explanation/opinion will be appreciated. S/MIME tends to be simpler all round, but getting a certificate from a recognised authority can be a bit of a chore and there is a 3.5k(ish) overhead per signature. This is particularly true when using TB to S/MIME sign because TB includes the public key within the signature. PGP has a much smaller overhead and provides much closer hands on control. You have to install extra software to use it though. TB's built in PGP support uses only "old fashioned" RSA key support. By installing one of the mainstream PGP packages, you get all the mod-cons of PGP support. These external packages are NAI PGP 7.x, PGP 6.5.8 ckt and GnuPG. You can interface to the latter two of these using TB's PGP plug-in DLL's. You are also at liberty to use one of their "Tray" support applications to perform all signing and other privacy operations. My opinion is: Horses for Courses. I use PGP to sign all business messages and any where people may want to verify my messages. Some clients prefer S/MIME for encrypted communication, some prefer PGP. My personal preference is for PGP. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator SB! v1.60d/iKey1000-5523848F0B1 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 · -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQE8xw6QOeQkq5KdzaARAljgAKDF6FNbdT+sxi13P0LIvEZkTnmdigCdFLDu 0iA6cBqChGYufPM7Cba1msY= =PWom -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60c 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]
