From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 19:07:07 PDT
To: hfinney@shell.portal.com (Hal)
Subject: Re: Fixing pgp 2.6
In-Reply-To: <199405170119.SAA03626@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <199405170206.AA26216@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> For the same reason, hopes of getting a non-RSA-approved "2.6a" (hacked
> to be backwards compatible with 2.3) widely available in the U.S. are
> not well founded.  FTP sites which hold programs or even patch files to
> allow 2.6 to interoperate with 2.3 will be targetted by RSA as
> contributory infringers.  In short, the legal advantages PGP 2.6 will
> have over unapproved versions will be strong enough that it will be
> widely used in the U.S.

I hadn't considered this.  My question is answered.

> 
> However, this does not mean the loss of international encrypted
> communications.  The solution is simple.  PGP 2.3a will be patched to
> be compatible with PGP 2.6.  I don't know what we'll call it,
> "PGP2.3e", perhaps, where "e" is for Europe.  2.3e will have the speed
> advantages of 2.3a, no copyright problems with RSAREF use, be perfectly
> legal outside the U.S., and will interoperate with 2.6.  Converting
> from 2.3a to 2.3e will be no more difficult than converting from 2.2 to
> 2.3 was.


Frankly, I am really not interested in using PGP2.6 IN the U.S.
I am reluctant to support the active restriction of capability in a 
software product by dignifying its underhanded tactics in using it.

More serious efforts at a stealth PGP which makes identification of the 
creator of cyphertext near impossible is badly needed.

I wonder if a Mac version will be available by September.

I wonder if a Mac version of StealthPGP will ever be available.

I wish I had the time/know-how to create one myself.


> 
> Hal
> 

-uni- (Dark)


-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!