James Knott wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> That's actually a very good point. Oddly enough I haven't thought about
>> it before and I bet people never stop and think how they conduct business
>> and what protocols are involved. Clearly there is no encryption among the
>> medical community.
>
> I've got a friend of mine, a psychologist, interested in encrypted e-mail.
> Now, if only her colleague would follow.
>
>>
>> When I needed to send my Web host an important password, I requsted their
>> PGP key. I was then told that PGP was not set up on their machine... so I
>> sent it unencrpted... unfortunately this was not the only time that I
>> sent the password for a site over non-secure SMTP.
>>
>
> While PGP is an excellent tool, perhaps X.509 digital certificates would
> be
> a better option. They're simpler to use than PGP. Many people can get a
> digital certificate through work, their bank, etc. Another source, is the
> free e-mail certificates, available from:
>
> http://www.thawte.com/email/index.html
>
> I've got Mozilla configured for both PGP and X.509. And, it is possible
> to
> use both on the same message. ;-)
All these different strands of encryption methods are an intimidating
factor. Imagine yourself where we would be if E-mail was not standardised.
I mean, MIME is fine, but look at the failed attempts of some to shove in
HTML. All that branching is the same peril that crippled Linux.
Have you tried installing PGP in Thunderbird (Enigmail)? It's really simple.
Also, KMail came with PGP 'semi-preconfigured' along with this
distribution...
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
