[Gpg4win-devel] vs S/MIME (Re: Putty and ECDSA support for gpg-agent in 2.0)

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Wednesday 10 July 2013 at 11:46:14, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> I've been trying to marginally follow this topic. I'm afraid I've
> lost the red line. I've got the impression that topic changes from the
> initial root CA dialog of the installer to a more generell discussion
> about S/MIME versus OpenPGP. Please excuse me, if I'm wrong and feel
> free to correct me.

You are spot on, the connection is:
The desired level of S/MIME support of the product is an input to the question 
if the root cert dialog is needed.

> Even at the risk of extending the already confusing thread I would like
> to re-focus at the initial question again. If I got the initial
> question right, I have to admit that the root CA installation dialog has
> never been of any use for me and should be dropped. I cannot imagine
> that it might be useful to anybody. 

Thanks for that feedback. Why was it not useful for you?
Did you know the information already?

> I am afraid that the question about the best encryption standard, e.g.
> S/MIME or OpenPGP, cannot be answered finally. Although I tend a bit
> more to OpenPGP, in practice I do combine both standards. Personally I
> prefer OpenPGP for email and I use S/MIME certificates of my FreeRadius
> and OpenVPN server - both on server and on client side.

Thanks for this feedback as well.

-- 
www.intevation.de/~bernhard (CEO)    www.fsfe.org (Founding GA Member)
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, Germany; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Owned and run by Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.wald.intevation.org/pipermail/gpg4win-devel/attachments/20130710/e15f2058/attachment.sig>