1994-05-25 - patch to PGP 2.6

Header Data

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6f0ec93f2164cf35b53697ebe8693a9bcfe9b5366f5b51c26b9b31d853010dee
Message ID: <9405250132.AA18036@ah.com>
Reply To: <199405241830.NAA12504@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-25 01:27:55 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 May 94 18:27:55 PDT

Raw message

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 18:27:55 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: patch to PGP 2.6
In-Reply-To: <199405241830.NAA12504@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
Message-ID: <9405250132.AA18036@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   > 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.

   Is "indistinguishability" the point or "interoperability"?

Reference is not advocacy.

I was speaking of what was necessary to ensure indistinguishability.
If that is your goal, then this is directly relevant.  If not, then it
may be beside the point.

The change in version numbers seems to have two effects, both of which
I addressed.  Use these statements as they are appropriate to your


P.S. The "you" is the general "you".