From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:58:30 +0800
To: cryptography@c2.net
Subject: Re: Technical Description of PGP 5.5
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971015004322.0068ca64@popd.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19971022210316.00727944@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 07:12 AM 10/15/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to imply that the CMR fields 
>in the key structure are really just a convenience -- if PGP, Inc. 
>didn't write an smtp filter that enforced a CMR key, someone else
>(say a firewall vendor) could do so easily, defining whatever 
>relationship between keys they wanted.

Anybody with half a brain, a copy of perl, and the PGP 5.0 source from
http://www.pgpi.com/ could write a similar filter in a matter of hours.

I am going to install PGP's SMTP filter on my box. To make it impossible to
accidentally send unencrypted mail to certain people. :-)

>To make that a bit stronger, it seems like *any* model that uses 
>persistent encryption keys essentially enables CMR-like functionality 
>in a smtp filter -- it could be done using pgp 2.6.

Correct. But this isn't going to stop people from complaining.

PGP 5.5 is considerably better than PGP 5.0. The LDAP support alone is
reason to upgrade. The UI is improved and if you don't want to use message
recovery, just don't turn it on.

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