Two Certificate Managers?

[George Staikos]

On April 20, 2002 17:26, Marc Mutz wrote:

> Thanks for trying to ridicule me.
> If people want to backup their keys or if they want them be stored on a
> floppy, they'll find out surprisingly fast what backend is being used.

   They shouldn't have to with S/MIME.  It uses PKCS and X.509.  The file 
format is standardized and portable.  If you click on a PKCS#12 bundle with 
konqueror you will see the KDE certificate import kpart launch.
    
> >  I said that the crypto code in KDE is
> > not written by KDE developers.
>
> That's _currently_ right.
>
> >  It is written by OpenSSL developers, who
> > have at least as good a reputation as anyone else from what I can tell.
>
> That's right. But since OpenSSL can't be used, there would be a need for a
> replacement backend. I remember some KDE developer talking about writing
> his own. ;-) That's what I had in mind when I wrote about reputation.

   Well I currently have no time to work on something like this, but unless a 
reasonable alternative presents itself in the future, it still might happen.  
If you don't like it, don't insult me personally.  Do something about it 
yourself.  Prove my code wrong.  Your superstition and fear means nothing in 
the big picture.  Your actions do.

   Even if I do write such a thing myself, that doesn't guarantee its use in 
KDE.  It would have to go through the same testing, review and approval 
procedures as anything else.

   There is some crypto to be introduced into kdelibs soon, and it will not go 
into until I have had it thoroughly reviewed and tested of course.  I'm not 
wreckless.

> >   No there most certainly was not.
>
> I can't say anything about this. I was under the impression that you had
> discussions with the Aegypten team in private mail.

   I had discussions on the kmail list, on the gpg list, and in private mail.

> You are angry that your work was put aside for Aegypten. I understand that.
> Yet I don't have the desire to listen to your insults any longer. It seems
> you are no longer capable of discussing things calmly. I don't need this.

   So you declare?  Well you don't have to hear anymore from me.  I am too 
busy to continue with this nonsense.

> I have tried to explain why GnuPG is the first and obvious choice for
> adding S/MIME support. You seem to disagree. Fine. People have differing
> opinions. That's life.

  I do not disagree.  I disagree with the certificate storage and management 
mechanism.  For all I know, GPG is as good as any other tool for S/MIME 
support.