From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 02:08:17 +0800
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Technical Description of PGP 5.5
In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19971022210316.00727944@netcom10.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971025110333.03966b0c@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 03:25 PM 10/24/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote:

[Busy week. Expect increased response time].

>If the pgp5.5 functionality is designed to provide companies with a
>disaster recovery procedure (forgotten passphrase, or dead employee),
>there are much better ways to do it.  We're not arguing against the
>user requirement, just against the methodology.

There have been numerous proposals on the list to accomplish the above
goals in a way other than the method employed by PGP. I have read the
proposals and I am not convinced that said proposals are less intrusive.
IMO the vast majority of the proposals I saw are more intrusive. One
subscriber even argued, make that screamed, that PGP 5.5 was evil because
it didn't automatically cc: the email to the corporate recovery agent. The
mind boggles.


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/