cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-05-24 - Re: compatibility with future PGP

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Message Hash: 4dc36b95b674e90087877bd3787f71c516fdff4e0e6349b1075b84ce364769c5
Message ID: <9405241812.AA02712@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199405241807.OAA05660@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-24 18:12:55 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 May 94 11:12:55 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 11:12:55 PDT
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: compatibility with future PGP
In-Reply-To: <199405241807.OAA05660@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <9405241812.AA02712@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Shostack says:
> 	Technically, they never had access to v1, either.  As I said
> in my first message, I've heard 2.5 has already found its way out of
> the US.  If that is the case, then the non-US users have access to
> 2.5.

I wouldn't know where to find 2.5 outside the U.S.

Besides, there are other scenarios in which one would want such
patches. Here are just a couple.

1) You have a friend with an old PGP who wants to send you mail and
   who can't get a new PGP. Old PGP will read old PGP generated files,
   but new will not read old.
2) You have a friend eight months from now who only has old PGP and
   who you would like to send new PGP to. He knows your old-form
   signature but can't read the new one. The patch is simple enough
   that he can verify it himself. You can send it to him and then send
   him a signed copy of the new PGP.

In any case, I see no reason to oppose people posting patches.

This is the last time I'll post on this topic. Its getting old fast.

Perry

Thread