[14361] in Cypherpunks
Re: PGP 2.6 is dangerous in the long term ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Del Torto)
Sat May 28 11:01:43 1994
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 07:46:23 -0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks List)
From: ddt@lsd.com (Dave Del Torto)
At 12:43 pm 5/25/94 -0500, Matthew Gream wrote:
>Personally, I happen to dislike the PGP 2.6 saga; I think it's
>effectively turning the wheel back viz. "US only software" as well
>as confusing the issue ("oh, which PGP do you have ?").
IMHO, that is *precisely* why RSA Labs would license RSAREF to MIT for 2.6.
Confusion and obfuscation on the topic of PGP can only make their work
easier.
[elided]
>So quite possibly, PGP 2.6 is doing a great deal more longer term
>damage to the viablity of PGP than is immediately obvious. Is this a
>valid viewpoint ?
Absolutely valid, Matthew: I recommend that we do our best to resolve what
will be done to counter this tactical move against PGP here on this list -
without spreading confusing rumors around to the benefit of RSA Labs - and
meanwhile provide a simple, patched version of 2.3 for all platforms that
both offers fully-2.6-compatible ciphertext and 2.6-impersonating keys.
dave
