Rich Salz writes: | >From pem-dev-request@neptune.tis.com Wed Sep 13 19:27:35 1995 | Message-Id: <9509132011.AA19261@tis.com> | Reply-To: James M Galvin <tismoss-support@TIS.COM> | To: "MOSS.Announce.List":;, tis.com@TIS.COM | Subject: ANNOUNCE: TIS/MOSS Version 7.1 [...] | 3 | Q: How does MOSS compare to PGP and PEM? | | PGP can provide the same services but since it is not integrated with | MIME the interpretation of the protected content is necessarily user | controlled. Note, however, that MIME can carry a PGP object. Just wondering - is anyone working on a profile for PGP under MOSS and/or the multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted body parts ? Whether or not they are, it would be useful to have a de-facto standard for the use of PGP with current MIME implementations. I recall there was a draft RFC by Nathaniel Borenstein which dealt with this, but it was withdrawn to leave the way clear for MOSS ? Why bother ? Well, there are lots of mailers out there with "some" MIME support - enough for launching a helper application to read and perhaps compose (say) application/pgp, but not nearly enough to handle MOSS. I'm thinking about commercial offerings for the likes of MacOS, DOS, and Windows in particular. It seems like a really neat hack to use the MIME support to bring PGP in by stealth, but perhaps most of the implementations Out There are too crippled ? Over to you... :-) Martin