From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C5259F.8DC8C4E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

the "security" you are claiming for email is protection against
someone = sniffing your traffic on the network, it really has nothing to do
with = email.

As for the hard core computer user, I don't imagine you hear many people =
at MS talking on the phone saying "oh my email address, it's www dot
... = at which point you know you're in trouble. I see that all the time,
not = just from people I work with but from customers and suppliers. You
have = to understand these people don't know the difference between a URL
and = an email address but they can tell the difference between an
injection = screw and an extrusion screw. It's a different world from where
you = work. They would rather have a paper desk calendar than a computer
based = one.

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:42307b9b{at}w3.nls.net...
     I don't understand why you are not sure.  Its the channel.  I =
disagree with the rest of your comments.

     Not everyone is a hard core computer user though all are obviously =
computer users.  You obviously have never seen this which may be why you =
don't understand.  It is clear to the recipient.  And BTW, if you use = the
global address book you never seen actual email addresses unless you = want
to.

  Rich

    "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:42302c85$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:422fe6b0{at}w3.nls.net...
    >>an untrusted channel not a secure channel.  Think of it as similar =
to
    delivering a signed download over HTTP vs. any download (signed or =
not) over
    HTTPS.<<

    I'm not sure which you are claiming is secure but the signed example
    requires both client ends to use the same signing system and the =
https
    example is between you and your server but not the rest of the email
    transaction. In the first case email isn't secure because everyone =
isn't
    using the same signing system (it's not required) and in the second =
example
    it's wide open between your server and every other server on the =
planet so
    again it's not secure.

    >>To schedule I meeting

    In this example you assume everyone you are inviting to the meeting =
is a
    hard core computer user, a fair assumption if you work for a =
computer
    related company but not if you work for a plastics company where =
most
    employees barely grasp the concept that an email address has to have =
an {at} in
    it..

    Geo.


------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C5259F.8DC8C4E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








the "security" you
are claiming for =
email is=20
protection against someone sniffing your traffic on the network, it = really has=20
nothing to do with email.
 
As for the hard core computer user, I =
don't imagine=20
you hear many people at MS talking on the phone saying "oh my email =
address,=20
it's www dot ... at which point you know you're in trouble. I see that = all the=20
time, not just from people I work with but from customers and suppliers. = You=20
have to understand these people don't know the difference between a URL = and an=20
email address but they can tell the difference between an injection = screw and an=20
extrusion screw. It's a different world from where you work. They would = rather=20
have a paper desk calendar than a computer based one.
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:42307b9b{at}w3.nls.net...
     I don't
understand why =
you are not=20
  sure.  Its the channel.  I disagree with the rest of your=20
  comments.
   
     Not
everyone is a hard =
core computer=20
  user though all are obviously computer users.  You obviously have =
never=20
  seen this which may be why you don't understand.  It is clear to =
the=20
  recipient.  And BTW, if you use the global address book you never =
seen=20
  actual email addresses unless you want to.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
    wrote in message news:42302c85$1{at}w3.nls.net..."Rich"=20
    <{at}> wrote in message news:422fe6b0{at}w3.nls.net...>=
>an=20
    untrusted channel not a secure channel.  Think of it as similar =

    todelivering a signed download over HTTP vs. any download =
(signed or=20
    not) overHTTPS.<<I'm not
sure which you are =
claiming is=20
    secure but the signed examplerequires both client ends to use =
the same=20
    signing system and the httpsexample is between you and your =
server but=20
    not the rest of the emailtransaction. In the first case email =
isn't=20
    secure because everyone isn'tusing the same signing system (it's =
not=20
    required) and in the second exampleit's wide open between your =
server=20
    and every other server on the planet soagain it's not=20
    secure.>>To schedule I
meetingIn this example =
you=20
    assume everyone you are inviting to the meeting is ahard core =
computer=20
    user, a fair assumption if you work for a computerrelated =
company but=20
    not if you work for a plastics company where mostemployees =
barely grasp=20
    the concept that an email address has to have an {at}=20
    =
init..Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_0029_01C5259F.8DC8C4E0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5