PGP problems with PMMail 2000 Pro
Steve Lamb
pmmail@rpglink.com
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 18:01:43 -0800
On Fri, Dec 24, 1999 at 07:59:51PM -0500, Bill McCarthy wrote:
> Sure I can, Steve. In fact I did. The "potential backdoor" I
> referred to is not an illusion, that potential is builtin - RTFM.
I know it isn't an illusion. It also is not a backdoor at all nor is it
anything near as bad as privacy bigots make it out to be.
> "Furthermore, all current versions of PGP support some form of
> third party access to cryptographic keys. This "feature" has
> lead to a decrease of faith in the software."
Correct, but only when the key is made. RTFM yourself, bucko.
> >2: 2.6.x is not a standard no matter what your dillusions might
> be.
> No matter your delusions, Steve, it is and will continue to be
> until GPG becomes widely accepted.
Show me the standard, then.
HINT to the clueless: It is a commonly accepted convention, *NOT* a
standard. Just like wrapping in the 72-78 character range is a commonly
accepted *convention*, not a standard.
> "OpenPGP signature for this file. Because this may lead to a
> chicken-and-egg problem, there is also a PGP 2 signature."
Of course, to comply with backwards people like yourself.
> You referred to GPG 1.0.0. Actually Steve, the current release is
> GPG 1.0.1. Porting is no where near universal. Here's the entire
> section for the GPG home:
> Precompiled binaries are available for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're the one who said you compiled your own therefore this doesn't apply
to you.
> There appears to be a bit of bias in your logic, Steve, but there
> are no excuses.
No bias, just damned tired of people who don't have a clue spouting off
about the topic at hand, yet again and, once again, having to bring the facts
to light instead of the drummed up, paraniod fiction.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------