1995-02-12 - Re: the problem that destroyed PGP

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: peace@bix.com
Message Hash: 798eeaa306ebabd1f99dc1cb6bcd26aeb0062f1e426c2c309d124e92dc71e5a1
Message ID: <9502121449.AA18809@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9502120550.memo.29017@BIX.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-12 14:50:56 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 06:50:56 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 06:50:56 PST
To: peace@bix.com
Subject: Re: the problem that destroyed PGP
In-Reply-To: <9502120550.memo.29017@BIX.com>
Message-ID: <9502121449.AA18809@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



peace@bix.com says:
> So finding a KeyID is the problem that destroys PGP eh?

No, it doesn't "destroy" it. PGP just needs a redesign to pass along
DNSable tags (like joe@some.domain.org) with keyIDs.

> Well I would just take that as the problem to solve, not a
> reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

No one is proposing throwing it away. People are proposing small
changes to the format.

> All we need to do is design a distributed, hashed database.
> Should be a piece 'o cake, right?

No, we aren't going to do that, because its an administrative
nightmare, and I can't imagine proposing such a thing with a straight
face at an IETF meeting.

> Hey look, the net supports archie and a host of other non-structured
> search mechanisms.

No, it doesn't. Archie is a piece of shit that can't find what I need
about two thirds of the time and is slow as molasses and cannot
scale. It was a nice idea but its at the breaking point.

Perry





Thread