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