Rude, rude, rude!

[Brian Morrison]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:27:30 -0500, Carl S. Hayes wrote:

>The word should have been "would not" change, sorry
>about that!
>
>Carl
>
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:51:05 -0500, Carl S. Hayes wrote:
>
>>I seldom reply to much . . . however this time I must.
>>
>>I agree with Brian . . . if it's a $$s issue, then say so or just
>>get info out to those who have spent $$s over the years.
>>
>>I guess when you find 'die hard' OS/2 users I can only guess
>>that some software vendors feel that we will take what they
>>offer, when they offer it.  As for me, PMMail works just fine now.
>>While I would welcome some changes/improvements, I would
>>change because they haven't provided information.
>>

I guessed that. However, if you, like me, use PMMail 2000 Pro's PGP
capabilities provided via the built in PGP SDK, what do I do about the
recently announced ADK vulnerability? I know it is a more theoretical
exploit than one that is real, but even if it were not I have no way of
getting a fixed SDK without BSW.

So, support of an important part of PMMail (which I paid to upgrade to
when the export controls were relaxed) is effectively unsupported until
someone tells me otherwise. I wish it were not so.

-- 
Brian Morrison                                  bdm@fenrir.demon.co.uk
              do you know how far this has gone?
               just how damaged have I become?
                                      'Even Deeper' by Nine Inch Nails