PGP problems with PMMail 2000 Pro

[Steve Lamb]

On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 10:13:54PM -0500, Bill McCarthy wrote:
> I prefer the following so I don't miss any:
 
>    :%s/\<can't\>/won't/gc

    Nah, only one line, no need for the g or the %.  :P

> AFAIK CPunk and Mix Chaining remailers as well as most Nym operations 
> don't support PGP 5 along all hops.  
    
    They should.  

> Also, a 2047 bit PGP 2.62 key is still pretty secure.  New releases of PGP
> and SDKs may contain back doors.  I'll stick with 2.62 until the new
> standard emerges.

    How long has 5.0 been out?  PMMail98 was made using the 5.x SDK so at
least 2-3 years now.  There is a new standard out now in the same vein as the
old standard.  IE, it is there use it.  

    The security argument is bogus.  Have you looked through the lines of code
that you, I assume, compiled yourself or did you trust someone else?  I'm
betting the latter.  Why, then, do you not trust the 5.x series that have been
peer reviewed in the same manner?

    Furthermore, in using the 2.6.x series you continue to either perpetuate
or abuse the RSA license.  Personally, I don't like that idea one bit.  If
you're *really* concerned about /all/ of the issues instead of the copout of
"well, there /might/ be a back door" then you'd not be using PGP 2.6.x, you'd
be using GPG 1.0.0 with the appropriate wrapper to make it work with 5.x stuff
and, if you still wanted to violate/perpetuate the RSA license, compile it
with the RSAREF or RSA libraries...  After you read through the entire code,
of course.

    <http://www.gnupg.org/>

    The only way a "new" standard is going to replace the "old" standard
(which isn't a standard, it is a convention!) is if people such as yourself
let it go.

-- 
         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
         ICQ: 5107343          | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------