1997-06-23 - Re: New PGP signatures

Header Data

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com>
Message Hash: d923c936ec228d18b58ea70dfdcf3286b3b115df96ce687d39aec51116abaacd
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9706231057.A3379-0100000@netcom22>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-23 18:21:07 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 02:21:07 +0800

Raw message

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 02:21:07 +0800
To: Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com>
Subject: Re: New PGP signatures
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9706231057.A3379-0100000@netcom22>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Rick Osborne wrote:

> bennett_t1@popmail.firn.edu wrote:
> >some asshole forgot to make PGP 5.0 freeware RSA key-generating
> Okay, silly question here, but what's to stop someone from adding that
> capability once the source is available?  (And if they knew they were going
> to publish the source, why not just add the capability in the first place?)

Because there is no reason for PGP to enourage people to generate new
RSA/MD5 keys when MD5 is about to go downhill.

The source is being scanned as we speak, UNIX versions will obviously be 
forthcoming soon, if you want to generate RSA keys, use PGP 2.6.2.

Get a clue,