From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7ccebf306b36b2f09786160116fac79c13d87cbab38c67e75db28ca2f0bf6d00
Message ID: <9405252227.AA19848@ah.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9405251431.A13197-0100000@netcom7>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-25 22:22:18 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 25 May 94 15:22:18 PDT
From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Wed, 25 May 94 15:22:18 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 on MIT
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405251431.A13197-0100000@netcom7>
Message-ID: <9405252227.AA19848@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I was amazed to see that my 2.3a key now carries a 2.6 version number and
lists an 8-bit key ID. The key ID is identical to the old one with two
new characters up front.
You mean--gasp!--that someone downloaded the whole keyring shortly
before the server was due to go down? And then uploaded all the keys
with new version numbers, since nothing else needed to change?
I'm shocked. Simply shocked.
Does this bizarre "upgrading" mean that my key, as downloaded from
that server, will function as a 2.6 key and become incompatible
with 2.3n versions after the September 1st deadline?
No, it means the keyring format didn't change in the new version, and
that 2.6 prints out more of the last digits of your key, which hasn't
actually changed.
Eric
Return to May 1994
Return to “hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)”