Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncc!lyndon From: lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Crypt() in Elm - This may be a problem! Message-ID: <10297@ncc.Nexus.CA> Date: 23 Jun 88 17:42:16 GMT References: <470@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <278@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG> <485@altnet.ALTOS.COM> <10291@ncc.Nexus.CA> <492@altnet.ALTOS.COM> Reply-To: lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) Organization: Nexus Computing Inc. Lines: 23 In article <492@altnet.ALTOS.COM> edc@altnet.UUCP (Eric Christensen) writes: >Ah, I disagree on a couple of counts. And I disagree in turn :-) > 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. Exactly my point. I can think of three mailers (excluding elm) that implement their own mutually incompatible encryption system. What we don't need is a fourth one! If two users want to exchange encrypted messages, let THEM agree on how to do it. As a mail system administrator (for eight machines spread across four sites) I do *not* want to spend my time explaining why the mailer has an encryption feature, but that the user can't use it to send encrypted mail to foo!friend because s/he is using UA 'y' which is not compatible with UA 'z'. -- {alberta,pyramid,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA