E-Mail Encryption: Why Isn't Everyone Doing It?
Anthony E. Greene
Fri Oct 25 00:06:02 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 24-Oct-2002/21:45 +0200, Peter Schuller <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > This stuff does not need a good interface. It needs to drop out of
>> > sight. It needs to become as transparent and automatic as SSL.
>> No, it doesn't. It needs to be there so the users can tell the software
>> who they trust.
>Amen to that. I still don't know how to configure MSIE or Outlook etc to
>trust only a specific key (mutt does this fine though for example).
SSL/TLS is configurable, but installed defaults and default choices work
for most users most of the time. The shortfalls of a specific SSL
implementation notwithstanding, I maintain that encryption needs to "just
work" for most people to use it.
The fact is that WoT does not work well in a mass market deployment
scenario. Most people do not need the features that the WoT provides.
Some people do need those features, but most people don't, at least not
most of the time.
Anthony E. Greene <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
AOL/Yahoo Chat: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/>
Linux: the choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Anthony E. Greene 0x6C94239D <email@example.com>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----