[10433] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: PGP & GPG compatibility
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Josefsson)
Sat Feb 9 17:54:42 2002
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com,
Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C652E86.24668.14B6AEF@localhost> (jamesd@echeque.com's
message of "Sat, 9 Feb 2002 14:13:26 -0800")
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 23:52:19 +0100
Message-ID: <ilupu3emfoc.fsf@dhcp133.extundo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
jamesd@echeque.com writes:
>> > > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with
>> > > support for CAST5 would get more into use. [ etc. ]
>
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> > I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe
>> > that the recent few years have destroyed the PGP
>> > brandname. I think the only worthwhile way forward is to
>> > create a cryptographic email standard de novo, which is
>> > free of export, trademark, and patent problems.
>
> On 9 Feb 2002, at 22:36, Lucky Green wrote:
>> I believe such a standard already exists. It is called
>> S/MIME. Best of all, this email encryption standard is
>> supported out-of-the-box by the overwhelming majority of
>> deployed MUA's in the world.
>
> However, to make it work, everyone needs to get officially
> blessed keys, and manage those keys.
I believe it would be fruitful to separate the secure email message
formats (S/MIME vs PGP/MIME, or perhaps CMS vs OpenPGP) from the key
trust mechanism (PKI CA vs PGP web of trust). In theory I cannot see
why one decision need to affect the other, they could be orthogonal
issues. Perhaps by reading the relevant standards creatively, a
mailer sending S/MIME messages but uses a OpenPGP implementation
locally is already possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
