From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
To: N/A
Message Hash: 4e9f741653a8e0d7dd79f16459f874c31199e9b9b90bb05e316b200f80f3cd4c
Message ID: <QQacwq06952.199602141309@relay3.UU.NET>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-14 13:27:39 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:27:39 +0800
From: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:27:39 +0800
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <QQacwq06952.199602141309@relay3.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>When asked, he also indicated that the PGP 3.0 message formats would be
>embedded into the API in such a way that it would not be possible to use
>the library to generate or process stealth.
Mmmmm....
It seems that there a market demand for a stealth-capable product. Many peoples here
seems to discuss it. And for the time being, AFAIK, this type of products are used
by a specific class of peoples, most of which knows what 'stealth' means.
So why is it that they design a program that would not permit the use of a feature
considered desirable by it's customer base?
Regards to most CypherPunk.
JFA
**** NEW PGP 2.6.2 KEY *********
2048 bits Key ID:24201BA1 1996/02/13 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Key fingerprint = 23 B6 24 31 86 67 FB 35 C7 A7 AF 12 A1 61 E9 3D
**** OLD KEY: DO NOT USE ANYMORE UNLESS FOR VERIFYING SIGNATURES ****
1024 bits Key ID:57214AED 1995/10/04 Jean-Francois Avon <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Key fingerprint = 84 96 76 AE EB 7C AB 15 88 47 87 B0 18 31 74 9F
Return to February 1996
Return to “owner-cypherpunks@toad.com”
1996-02-14 (Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:27:39 +0800) - No Subject - owner-cypherpunks@toad.com