1993-09-30 - Re: How about a pgp RFC…

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 544bded5d96e529d9be9da4372a8b270b74f123d66c3cee006d4c1b757668de2
Message ID: <9309301743.AA01457@snark.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199309301716.AA17376@misc.glarp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-30 17:46:37 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 10:46:37 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 10:46:37 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How about a pgp RFC...
In-Reply-To: <199309301716.AA17376@misc.glarp.com>
Message-ID: <9309301743.AA01457@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Actually, an application type for MIME would seem to be more than
sufficient...

Perry

Brad Huntting says:
> 
> If you've followed the PEM working group in recent years, you may
> have come to the conclusion as I have that it is not going anywhere,
> and probably never will.
> 
> In an effort to make e-mail crypto more wide spread, I suggest we
> draw up an internet-draft on the PGP message format, and the
> algorithms used to send and receive messages.
> 
> At the moment I can think of nothing PEM can do that PGP cant.
> Granted there are problems scaling the web-of-trust model, but PGP
> is also capable of using a top down model (really just a subset of
> the web model).
> 
> One thing such a draft is sure to do is send a clear signal to the
> PEM group that they must either start swimming or sink.
> 
> 
> brad





Thread