From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0cdd72cd3a19640bed1f0e194bb11198351ecbefe5d210c11f94a2c105a969b7
Message ID: <199711090303.EAA18301@basement.replay.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-11-09 03:13:38 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:13:38 +0800
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:13:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [SURVEY try again] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users
Message-ID: <199711090303.EAA18301@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Robert A. Costner wrote:
> Just to skew the numbers, I for instance have PGP 5.0 but am using a 2.6.2
> DOS generated key that is RSA, not DSS. Grepping would show me to be PGP5.x,
> which perhaps technically I am, but my key is really 2.x
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
This information is mostly for advertising/accreditation purposes.
As such, it provides very little information useful for statistical
purposes. e.g. - whether people are using PGP 5.X mostly for management
of their PGP 2.6.X keys.
Return to November 1997
Return to “nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)”
1997-11-09 (Sun, 9 Nov 1997 11:13:38 +0800) - Re: [SURVEY try again] pgp5.x / pgp2.x users - nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)