- Michael Ströder wrote:
> you've asked for feedback on
> "1. DESIRABLE FEATURES REFERENCE SHEET"
> I don't understand F18 and F19. Maybe you're
> referencing transparent
> encrypting of e-mail attachments? But then this
> should not be limited to
> HTML attachments.
Yes, you're right. It has been improved in the new
> Personally I'd never use a e-mail software which
> follows this requirement:
> "(**) [..] If the recipient wishes to decline to
> provide the receipt,
> the recipient should not attempt to decrypt the
This is the same rule that postal mail follows. The
receipt is useful for both sender and recipient, in
addition as evidence for the sender; for example, if
the sender knows that the recipient read (decrypted)
the email, the sender does not have to send another
email or make a call.
> "2. PROBLEMS / ATTACKS REFERENCE SHEET"
> P1 to P5 seems to be very much related to
> client-server processing. Are
> you pointing to web-based e-mail clients here? If
> yes, I'd suggest to
> make this more clear in the text by explicitly
> mentioning this type of
They apply to desktop-, intranet- or web- based. For
example P15 applies to PGP, web based or not.
> It's not clear to me why you list "F6 Base 64
> Encoding" as a feature.
It looks like a lame feature but some email products
do it better than others. For product evaluation you
can change the check mark to a product-specific grade.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Re: Comparison of X.509 / PKI, PGP, and IBE
Posted by Ed Gerck at 8:22 PM