From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8fe5eef3ee81f3ea41a0bb6f8e9123b62f2a89797e9a4facd18ece048b7a0847
Message ID: <9405270751.AA07274@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-27 07:52:41 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 27 May 94 00:52:41 PDT
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 00:52:41 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 (Aaargh!)
Message-ID: <9405270751.AA07274@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Eric Hughes writes, regarding the issues of keyserver incompatibility:
> Why might not one want a key distributed? It indicates use of
> cryptography, for one, and, perhaps, the use of patent-infringing
> cryptography.
Well, if having your key on a keyserver encourages people to send you
messages you can't decrypt instead of looking for other keyservers
which have more useful keys for you, it's a waste of your time
and your correspondents' to have that key out there.
It's also, of course, a way to complain to people who run incompatible
keyservers :-)
Bill
Return to May 1994
Return to “wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)”
1994-05-27 (Fri, 27 May 94 00:52:41 PDT) - Re: My 2.3a Key is listed as a 2.6 (Aaargh!) - wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)