1997-10-10 - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?
Header Data
From: “John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Message Hash: c7ba3b21ac727d35a68ddea4e17f293f9389b73c62a809b5c53aff30503f0f1c
Message ID: <v04001b20b0637c652eba@[129.46.85.154]>
Reply To: <3.0.3.32.19971007142710.00a22970@mail.pgp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-10 06:57:35 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:35 +0800
Raw message
From: "John W. Noerenberg" <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:35 +0800
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: What's really in PGP 5.5?
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971007142710.00a22970@mail.pgp.com>
Message-ID: <v04001b20b0637c652eba@[129.46.85.154]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 6:06 PM +0100 10/8/97, Adam Back wrote:
>
>Email itself is pretty fragile, and email is not commonly used for
>long term storage.
Now this is a pretty bold assertion. One with which I completely disagree.
As I peruse my Eudora folder this evening, I can easily pick out messages
that date back nearly 6 years. Looking thru IETF working group archives
(which are *all* email) it is possible to find messages dating back 10
years and more.
Moreover, it is not unheard of during legal discovery for email to be made
subject to search (Our lawyers are constantly tut-tuting about all the
email that is saved). So to say it is not used for long-term storage is
simply incorrect.
Since your argument pretty much is based on this claim, Adam, I have a hard
time accepting any of it.
john w noerenberg, ii
jwn2@qualcomm.com
pager: jwn2@pager.qualcomm.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"A beautiful idea has a much greater chance of being a correct idea
than an ugly one."
-- Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind", 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thread
Return to October 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to “Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>”
- Return to “Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>”
- Return to “Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>”
- Return to ““John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>”
- Return to “lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)”
- Return to “Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>”
- Return to “Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>”
- Return to “The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>”
- Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>”
- 1997-10-07 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 05:44:17 +0800) - What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:42:36 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Charles Platt <cp@panix.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:07:14 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:55:48 +0800) - access to storage keys, NOT comms keys! (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:40:01 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:09 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-08 (Wed, 8 Oct 1997 20:56:39 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Mike <Michael.Johnson@mejl.com>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 01:22:18 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:19:39 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 01:56:46 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - The Prosecutor <tp@dev.null>
- 1997-10-10 (Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:04 +0800) - Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-10-08 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 07:27:31 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:45:06 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
- 1997-10-09 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 02:39:33 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - Jon Callas <jon@pgp.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:57:35 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - “John W. Noerenberg” <jwn2@qualcomm.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:24:06 +0800) - do NOT escrow communications keys (Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5?) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-10-13 (Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:06:53 +0800) - Re: Corporate Access to Keys (CAK) Considered Harmful - Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
- 1997-10-10 (Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:11:54 +0800) - Re: What’s really in PGP 5.5? - lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)