From: Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 14:48:12 +0800
To: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
Subject: Re: PGP compatibility
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971102005347.006b8be4@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971102073541.23843A-100000@pakastelohi.cypherpunks.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Robert A. Costner wrote:

> 
> My copy of PGP 5.0 seems to be completely compatible with 2.6 versions.  This 
> message is signed, and my key is included within the message for those of you 
> who have software that discards the non signed portion.  (If you don't know 
> how to extract my key, copy it and fix the broken dashed line, or use a 
> keyserver)

Of course your copy of PGP 5.0 is compatible with prior versions. I know
this, you know this, and the anonymous author claiming otherwise knows
this. He simply hopes that there are some people that don't know this. The
idea behind the original post and others like it over the last few days is
to spread FUD about PGP 5.0 after other attacks failed for lack of merrit.
If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually some people will believe you. 
PSYOPS 101. Let's not fall for it.

[Yes, I know that DSA keys can not be read by PGP 2.6. Neither will Word
1.0 read Word 7.0 files. So what?]

 -- Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred.
    "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"