cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

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: d96d11edf80142908a3553abead55599ae402ac4c73c79e2c65d1c5307b48cde
Message ID: <9405242046.AA03094@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199405242041.QAA05953@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-24 20:46:42 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 May 94 13:46:42 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 13:46:42 PDT
To: Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: compatibility with future PGP
In-Reply-To: <199405242041.QAA05953@bwnmr5.bwh.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <9405242046.AA03094@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Adam Shostack says:
> Perry writes:
> | 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.
> 
> 	I wasn't opposing them; I was suggesting that patching 2.5
> would be more productive in the long run than patching 2.3

Again, as I've noted, there are people who will need, for whatever
reason, to fix their old 2.3a (or pre-2.3a) system so that it will
interoperate.  Assuming that 2.5 finds its way overseas, it is not an
unreasonable code base for FUTURE development. However, what we are
talking about is not new development but retrofits.

Perry

Thread