1997-10-10 - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?
Header Data
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 788d371ff909d40f6672395d4439a02f554c04a9db6207db7a911ced99f5ba73
Message ID: <slrn63s326.10h.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
Reply To: <3.0.3.32.19971007142710.00a22970@mail.pgp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-10 11:11:54 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:54 +0800
Raw message
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971007142710.00a22970@mail.pgp.com>
Message-ID: <slrn63s326.10h.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
* Jon Callas wrote:
>It brings up a dialog box and gives you the option of encrypting to Alice
>alone or Alice plus her corporate recovery key. If the "strict" flag is set
>on Alice's CMRK and you remove it, we display a dialog box that wags a
>finger at you and tells you you're being naughty, but that's it. If you
>remove Alice's CMRK from your key ring, it just sends to Alice alone and
>doesn't bother you at all.
The CMRK must not be used in eMails. It may be used in storing folders.x
If it does work in that way, it's GAK to temprorary communication keys.
Thread
Return to October 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to “Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>”
- Return to “Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>”
- Return to “Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>”
- Return to ““John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>”
- Return to “lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)”
- Return to “Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>”
- Return to “Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>”
- Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>”
- 1997-10-07 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:44:17 +0800) - What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:42:36 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:07:14 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:55:48 +0800) - access to storage keys, NOT comms keys! (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:56:39 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:18 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:39 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:56:46 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:27:31 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:06 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:39:33 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:35 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:24:06 +0800) - do NOT escrow communications keys (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-13 (Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:06:53 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:54 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)