[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design proposal: crypto-capable generic interface
On Sun, 19 Nov 1995, Derek Atkins wrote:
> What do you mean by "technically superior"? What technical merits
> does MOSS have over PGP? It does have a better protocol with which to
> integrate it into mailers, but it is only a transmission protocol, not
> a security mechanism change. Worse, MOSS uses X.509, which requires a
> lot of overhead for certificates.
Ah, I was hoping that my statement would stir some controversy. I've
learned that well thought out, carefully reasoned posts never get any
I agree with you that the X.509 stuff is extra baggage in MOSS.
Fortunately, the use of X.509 is optional.
MOSS has two very large advantages over PGP:
1. It can operate without temp files.
2. It has no non-MIME variant.
It will take forever for PGP/MIME to catch on. Thus, PGP will never
really be a suitable candidate for my generic interface. Ah well.
> On the other hand, the MIME-PGP protocol can provide the same
> integration functionality as MOSS and still allow the use of the
> simple PGP certification structure that already exists.
This is true. I hope it happens.