Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!altnet!edc From: edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Crypt() in Elm - This may be a problem! Message-ID: <492@altnet.ALTOS.COM> Date: 21 Jun 88 07:29:17 GMT References: <470@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <278@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG> <485@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <10291@ncc.Nexus.CA> Reply-To: edc@altnet.UUCP (Eric Christensen) Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA. Lines: 25 In article <10291@ncc.Nexus.CA> lyndon@ncc.nexus.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: > >As far as I am concerned, if two people want to send each other encrypted >mail they should implement their own compatable (with each others) >crypt(1) replacement. I don't think encryption should be part of the UA. >Let's use the man hours to develop some bullet proof parsing for return >addresses. We can always add the bells later. Ah, I disagree on a couple of counts. For one, If there is going to be an encryption option, it MUST be consistent between systems. There's nothing worse than getting an encrypted message and not being able to decrypt it. (I know, I've been there all too often.) Second, the encryption is already part of Elm 2.0. The only issue is Dave's use of the crypt() routine. There are plenty of portable public domain encryption routines that we can simply snarf, with a minimum of time. -- +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Eric D. Christensen | Email: edc@altnet.altos.com (uunet!altnet!edc) | | Altos Computer Systems +---------------------------------------------------+ | 399 West Trimble Road | Definitions: Bug - An Undocumented Feature | | San Jose, Ca. 95131 | Feature - A Documented Bug | +-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | These views aren't Altos' - They're mine, all mine, and you can't have them | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+