Collective posting to save list-space. Aka "green" posting :-)
Eddy Nigg wrote:
>> i.e. the concept of "Web Signing"?
>What is this supposed to be? Perhaps I missed it?
Ian G wrote:
>What is "Web Signing?"
>And, what are the requirements?
As I wrote in my previous "Slamming S/MIME" posting, m
Anders Rundgren wrote:
Guys,
Let's return to this topic in 5 years or so and see if S/MIME actually has
gotten
any further with respect to uptake. You and me obviously have the opposite
position
on this one. Sort of "Yes we can" versus "No, you can't" to paraphrase a recent
moment in world h
On 11/19/2008 05:52 PM, Anders Rundgren:
In the meantime, wouldn't it be of some value if Mozilla tried to satisfy a PKI-
related activity that in number of users, already is much bigger than S/MIME,
i.e. the concept of "Web Signing"?
What is this supposed to be? Perhaps I missed it?
--
Regar
Guys,
Let's return to this topic in 5 years or so and see if S/MIME actually has
gotten
any further with respect to uptake. You and me obviously have the opposite
position
on this one. Sort of "Yes we can" versus "No, you can't" to paraphrase a recent
moment in world history :-) They say that
Graham Leggett wrote:
> What is "content checking" and what does it have to do with security?
FYI
In Denmark a nationwide PKI has been deployed in the last couple of years. Very
soon after the start we realized that content scanning and S/MIME was clashing
in a number of organisations.
We (th
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
'content checking' is to verify that no secrets are included in
anything sent somewhere unapproved. For example, banks and other
fiduciaries need to ensure that private financial data isn't released,
educational institutions need to ensure that educational data isn't
releas
'content checking' is to verify that no secrets are included in
anything sent somewhere unapproved. For example, banks and other
fiduciaries need to ensure that private financial data isn't released,
educational institutions need to ensure that educational data isn't
released, and so on.
It is an
Anders Rundgren wrote:
There is no such thing as secure email at the server level.
For an *organization* this is statement is principally wrong. For an
organization the server is the only place where you actually can perform
security operations including content checking in a cost-efficient w
Anders Rundgren wrote:
Robert,
Pardon me. I did indeed not intended to slam Paul's guide.
I changed the thread but I don't expect a fruitful debate since the difficulties
are mostly unrelated to NSS. I feel sorry for those who feel that S/MIME
encryption needs to become mainstream because tha
"mozilla's crypto code discussion list"
Cc: "Bob Relyea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 20:01
Subject: Re: Slamming S/MIME. Re: How-to guide for email encryption
___
dev-tech-crypto
Anders Rundgren wrote:
Secure e-mail should have been put at the server-level, then we would have
had some base-level security that would cover 99% of all uses. But it
didn't and therefore 80% of all messages are not even coming from the
domain they claim. How very useful.
There is no such t
Robert,
Pardon me. I did indeed not intended to slam Paul's guide.
I changed the thread but I don't expect a fruitful debate since the difficulties
are mostly unrelated to NSS. I feel sorry for those who feel that S/MIME
encryption needs to become mainstream because that will never happen
since
12 matches
Mail list logo
