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: 67be9ebdecd8c463b9b7f4df49cff5ffd5c808262a1a6d993b32e308d78638d7
Message ID: <9405241706.AA02531@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199405241655.MAA05076@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-24 17:06:36 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:06:36 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:06:36 PDT
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: compatibility with future PGP
In-Reply-To: <199405241655.MAA05076@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <9405241706.AA02531@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Adam Shostack says:
> You wrote:
> | Another thing a patched 2.3 release would have to do to be fully
> | indistinguishable is to generate new version numbers itself after the
> | given date.
> 	While I understand that people prefer the 2.3 code because of
> its availablility outside of the US, and speed advantages, I think
> that its important to remember PGP has not really caught on in the US
> because of questions about its legality.  I'm trying to push for the
> widespread use of PGP 2.5 here at the Brigham & Women's hospital where
> I work.  I can't push for version 2.3 for legal reasons.

People overseas want to be able to use this program, too. There are
250 million people in the U.S., which constitutes under 1/20th of the
Earth's population. Quit being provincial. This discussion is about
what the other 4.75 billion people have to do to interoperate with the
brain-damaged MIT stuff.