Because I think the same decoupling can be achieved in a
bottom-up deployment of the classical PEM. MIME-PEM is a
bottom-up deployment of PEM but it requires MIME.
You see this as a disadvantage. I see it as a HUGE advantage. MIME gives me th
emachinery I need ...
Ned,
Please don't take me wrong. I thinnk MIME is a great thing,
especially for those who have MIME capable mailers to read AND send
MIME messages.
As a liaison to the user community in the companies I deal with who do
not have the MIME-intelligent mailers widely deployed/used, I see
requiring MIME as an added obstacle for deploying security services to
e-mail. I do realize that for communities (such as yours and
Amanda's) who already have MIME, the situation is reversed.
As for those without MIME, MIME/PEM is not appreciably harder to implement than
classic PEM when there's no MIME engine around. As a matter of fact I'd say it
is considerably easier, given the way things are labelled in each scheme.
I have to disagree but if you provide me the tools to do this easily,
I'd reconsider.
I completely agree. I tried to implement classic PEM within my MIME mailer, but
it was just too complex and never worked well enough.
Again, I have to disagree here too. We have classical-PEM integrated
with MIME. We use what Jeff Schiller had also an ID for some time
ago, basically using Content-Type and Metamail. It works fine without
the need to separate PEM body parts.
_______________________________________________________________________
Alireza Bahreman E-Mail:
bahreman(_at_)bellcore(_dot_)com
Bellcore, Room RRC-1K221 Phone : +1 908 699 7398
444 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854 Fax : +1 908 336 2943