Steve (K.),
Steve Crocker pointed out that this list was the correct group for the
poll. Every single person on this list was asked to participate. Every
single person who was willing to participate was included. If you have a
better way of polling what this group thinks, speak up.
You still haven't been willing to address the fact that the respondents
were self selected, precisely as PEM's developers and customers will be.
Instead you keep loudly claiming the sample's not big enough, with no
substantiation. It appears you don't understand the field of statistical
inference well enough to defend your vague opinion. That's not surprising
since statisticians themselves seldom agree on this issue.
Steve, your opinions are very important. So are the opinions of the
others here, including the majority who disagree with you. Continuing to
claim that they're "completely meaningless", to use your term, doesn't
help PEM a bit.
Doug
Doug:
We have heard much about your poll. We have not heard a single other
voice back your comments on this mailing. Why not? Could these other
individuals, who claim that privacy is their primary goal, also feel a
need to have authenticated key management as a support service for
privacy?
We have also heard a great deal of your complaining about the PEM
specifications. If you do not like them, rather than complaining,
why not offer at least one technical suggestion showing how they might
be fixed to meet your needs? As you have been vocally against integrity
and authentication, why not provide us with a mechanism for key
management that avoids these offensive services. Perhaps we can pass
the keys within the message headers. Clear text would be easiest to
parse :-). I would appreciate any insights you might have.
Charlie Watt
SecureWare, Inc.