1996-12-04 - Re: Anyone considered adding crypto into Microsoft Outlook?

Header Data

From: “Matthew J. Miszewski” <mjmiski@execpc.com>
To: “Phillip M. Hallam-Baker” <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Message Hash: d9694e5ec7c9998cf06e4310970452dfabb00943557c3f8259b262f37e5ccb7c
Message ID: <3.0.32.19961203223913.006a35b0@execpc.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-04 04:40:00 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:40:00 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 20:40:00 -0800 (PST)
To: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Anyone considered adding crypto into Microsoft Outlook?
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961203223913.006a35b0@execpc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>	It just struck me that it would probably make the most convenient
>platform for integrating cryptography. After all MAPI is an open,
extensible >API allowing ready access to the email "hooks" necessary. The
integration of >an address book with the email system makes it very easy to
add public key >information into a person's entry.
>
>	I'm not sure whether PGP or MOSS would be the most compatible format.
>Its quite possible that S/MIME would be more appropriate. 

I am currently using the new EPPI DLL for Eudora 3.0.  It integrates PGP
almost seamlessly.  I have had no problems at all ... yet.

>	It seems to me however that the main thing stopping the use of crypto has
been the pretty weedy interfaces. I'm afraid the MH hacks just don't cut
it. It seems to me that a downloadable plug-in would be very popular. I
know a lot of lawyers who would jump at the chance to use email but realize
they have to have crypto.
>
>	The main problem so far seems to be the impenetrability of the MAPI
documentation. Does anyone know of a usable reference or which of the
gazillion Microsoft Developer network CDs one can find more information?

hehe.  I totally agree.  MS = MaSsive Confusion.

>
>		Phill

Matt





Thread