Re: S/MIME or PGP/MIME?
Craig Van Tassle
Sat Dec 8 21:45:02 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Well for the first 3 encrypting it is fine. For the 4th it all depends on =
how you can deliver the message to him/her. If you can do it in person and=
via hardcopy. Then go a head and deliver it unencrypted. But if its in e=
-form that you have to deliver it i would recomend that you find some way t=
o send it so that it does become encrypted. even if you have to create a s=
elf extracting encrypted archive. that would be better then allowing some =
on to just put a nic in promoscious mode to intercept the message.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 07:56:13PM +0100, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Friday 07 December 2001 16:04, DeBug wrote:
> > JC> If sending a message to some of the
> > JC> recepients in plaintext is safe, why encrypt it to begin with?
> > I have keys for 3 recipients and their communication lines
> > are not safe
> > and also
> > i have 1 recipient with a safe line (i can do hand over) but i have
> > no key for him
> The solution is simple:
> First send the message encrypted to the 3 recipients and then send the=20
> message again (this time of course unencrypted) to the last recipient.
> Nevertheless, I don't like this because if I receive an encrypted=20
> message I usually don't think that the same message was sent to someone=
> else in unencrypted form.
> Furthermore I don't believe in *safe* lines, especially with email.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Gnupg-users mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----