1994-05-24 - Re: compatibility with future PGP

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Message Hash: c19d63b1eb41f16da9221dc944b31fd0234ce77c33e494c6b71521c75503fd3c
Message ID: <9405241954.AA02903@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9405241927.AA23276@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-24 19:54:38 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 May 94 12:54:38 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 12:54:38 PDT
To: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: compatibility with future PGP
In-Reply-To: <9405241927.AA23276@toxicwaste.media.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <9405241954.AA02903@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Derek Atkins says:
> > 1) You have a friend with an old PGP who wants to send you mail and
> >    who can't get a new PGP. Old PGP will read old PGP generated files,
> >    but new will not read old.
> Wrong, Perry.  Go read the announcement again.  2.6 will read old
> messages, but after sept 1 it will start generating incompatible
> messages that old versions cannot read. 

Ahem. This is only true if the pkccompat mode was on. I have plenty of
text around that 2.5 will not read. This is not tragic, but the
situation might arise.

In any case, I don't understand why anyone would rationally oppose the
distribution of Pr0duct Cypher's patches -- you don't have to use them
if you don't like.