From: rdew@el.nec.com (Bob De Witt)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 12:14:09 +0800
To: jkwilli2@unity.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: bugged?
Message-ID: <199802190400.UAA13074@yginsburg.el.nec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



TATTOOMAN,

Ken Williams <jkwilli2@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote on Wed Feb 18 10:28:21 1998:
> Breezy > On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Breezy wrote:
> >Babu Mengelepouti wrote:
> >> Ken Williams wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> > I got pgp 5.0. which will not work with your version. Upgrade man :-)
> >> He's the one who needs to change his version... to 2.6.x
> >Why use 2.6.x vs 5.0?  Is 5.0 not as stable or something?  Not as good?
> >...
> >====/------ Breezy ----------------------------/ 
> >===/---- ebresie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ----------/ 
> >==/---- http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~ebresie --/
> 
> PGP v2.6.2 for UNIX is RSA, and cannot decrypt anything crypted with 
> PGP v5.x.  v5.0 for UNIX features the DSS/Diffie-Hellman algorithm that
> all the other 5.x versions have.  v5.0 is stable, better, and is basically
> the current standard.  it is more script-friendly and has a better
> command-line.
> 
> basically, it really sucks when every encrypted message i have gotten in
> the past week was encrypted with RSA/DSS and i couldn't decrypt it with
> the v2.6.2 that is installed at work.  due to space limitations on my
> volume server and our nihilistic copyrighted software policy, my only
> solution/option at the moment is to bring my laptop to work just for
> message decryption.
> 
> i've sent in a software request for a PGP upgrade on the network, but due
> to the expensive PGP licensing agreements and the fact that we have close

NO, NO.  PGP licensing agreements are by the server, not by the client.  You
need 1 server in each local net, on an exported partition (drive).  Then the
users can run it from UNIX(NT).  You still have to combine the public keys 
onto a single keyring, but ...

BTW, arrange your contracts in two chuncks.  The small one has the high 
priced service agreement, and the large one has the licenses for the user
majority.

> to 50,000 active users, i don't expect anything to be done.
> 
> guess state employees don't have the right to privacy any more huh?
> and neither do the studnets here for that matter...
> 
> TATTOOMAN

Luck,

Bob De Witt,
rdew@el.nec.com