1997-10-22 - Re: wanted dead or alive: pgp5.5 key pair
Header Data
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 4151b5f55cc47c65587b60f2bf14ffa534102d3d7f51e858e0fe7272baa5fa17
Message ID: <slrn64rlm4.sm.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
Reply To: <199710212334.AAA02249@server.test.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-22 10:45:24 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:45:24 +0800
Raw message
From: lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:45:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: wanted dead or alive: pgp5.5 key pair
In-Reply-To: <199710212334.AAA02249@server.test.net>
Message-ID: <slrn64rlm4.sm.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
* Adam Back wrote:
>Enciphering minds want to find out how pgp5.0 reacts to this key :-)
>(The question is really does pgp5.0 encrypt to the CMR key).
Just returned from the source ... PGP 5.0 does encrypt to every so called
'message recovery key' mentioned in the public key self certificate option
if it is marked required or optional. If a key is missing, it fails encryting.
IIRC it does work on unhashed uncritical signature packets, too.
Thread
Return to October 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to “lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)”
Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
- 1997-10-22 (Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:07:42 +0800) - wanted dead or alive: pgp5.5 key pair - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-22 (Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:12:34 +0800) - Re: wanted dead or alive: pgp5.5 key pair - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-22 (Wed, 22 Oct 1997 18:45:24 +0800) - Re: wanted dead or alive: pgp5.5 key pair - lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)