?Two Certificate Managers? (Re: regarding KPF)

[Matthias Welwarsky]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 19 April 2002 10:59, George Staikos wrote:
> On April 19, 2002 03:45, Matthias Welwarsky wrote:
> > I talked to Karl-Heinz Zimmermann at the Cebit fair and pointed out that

Karl-Heinz Zimmer, I know ;) Please don't beat me for mixing up your name ;)

> > there already was a certificate manager for KSSL and asked why they
> > didn't use the existing one instead of writing an own version. His
> > reaction was like "I'm shocked" then. So, I hope this has been resolved
> > and you have come to the conclusion that duplicating functionality in
> > different modules has a good reason whatsoever. However, you'd probably
> > have a hard time convincing me.
>
>   I pointed this out right when the Aegypten project was announced.  There
> was no interest in using the KSSL database or manager.  Thus they share
> nothing in common (to my knowledge anyways).  The only argument I've heard
> is that they have to be system independent since they have to work in KDE
> and in mutt.  I still think it's unfortunate though.

This is _very_ unfortunate. I once had a certificate that I used to connect to 
the company imap server when working from home. I also used it to sign my 
mail in netscape. It was always getting on my nerves to have two places for 
storing the same information.

Well, there's still hope. This is Open Source, after all.

regards,
	Matze
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8v+o8ANO+fpRuZ2IRAlnAAJwLsA+IxEUHCfoHbuovzqsc0HcysACgueBk
K33tJGLArvPug46JMgTJwXU=
=0U51
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----