Lucky Green writes:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I think the only worthwhile way forward is to create a
> > cryptographic email standard de novo, which is free of export,
> > trademark, and patent problems.
>
> I believe such a standard already exists. It is called S/MIME
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with
>> > > support for CAST5 would get more into use. [ etc. ]
>
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> > I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe
>> > that the recent few years have destr
--
Werner Koch writes:
> > > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with
> > > support for CAST5 would get more into use. [ etc. ]
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe
> > that the recent few years have destroyed th
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> X-UID: 139934
>
> Werner Koch writes:
> > Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with support for CAST5
> > would get more into use. [ etc. ]
>
> I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe that the recent
> few years have destr
Werner Koch writes:
> Things would get much better if a PGP 2 version with support for CAST5
> would get more into use. [ etc. ]
I know that you're working hard, Werner, but I believe that the recent
few years have destroyed the PGP brandname. I think the only
worthwhile way forward is to cr
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:03:26PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> In fact, the most common reason cited for staying with PGP 2 is for
> compatibility reasons. However, GnuPG has no way of knowing what
> version a particular key corresponds to. Recently, various GnuPG
> "front-ends" have begun implem
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:28:17 +0100, Gilles Gravier said:
> Isn't it time GnuPG / PGP started offering AES as a standard algorithm?
Since version 1.0.4 all keys are created with AES as top cipher
preference. The snapshot version 1.0.6c allows to change preferences.
If you encrypt to such a key a
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 20:50:22 +, Adam Back said:
> GPG on the other hand is simply wilfully damaging interoperability by
> putting their anti-patent stance over the benefit of PGP users. I
> know there are modules to add IDEA support but they're not shipped by
The reason to write GnuPG were
Quoting David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am very concerned with interoperability issues using GPG. If
> someone is having a particular problem, I'd love to hear it so I can
> at least try to do something about it (I wrote the --pgp2 option as
> well).
How about encrypting and signing with Gn
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, John Gilmore wrote:
> These days, PGP is effectively useless for interoperable email. If
> you have not prearranged with the recipient, you can't exchange
> encrypted mail. And even if you have, one or the other of you will
> probably have to change your software, which wil
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 08:50:22PM +, Adam Back wrote:
> GPG on the other hand is simply wilfully damaging interoperability by
> putting their anti-patent stance over the benefit of PGP users. I
> know there are modules to add IDEA support but they're not shipped by
> default so most people
Brad's point about writing encryption software for Windows, as you often
write email to people who use Windows, so you know your email is safe on
*both* ends, has merit, and if Windows was at all secure I'd agree, but...
Another point about this type of zero-UI encryption is that you don't
actuall
If you ask me GPG has as much to answer for in the
non-interoperability problems with it's rejection of shipping IDEA
with the default GPG as PRZ et al for deciding to not ship RSA.
I tried arguing with PGP that if they wanted to phase out RSA use, the
best way would be to support it: then more p
John Gilmore wrote:
> Brad Templeton has been kicking around some ideas on how to make
> zero-UI encryption work (with some small UI available for us experts
> who care more about our privacy than the average joe).
That's an interesting article. I wrote Whisper
(http://234.cx/whisper.php) as a
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:02:07 +1300 (NZDT), Peter Gutmann said:
> There are already a number of S/MIME gateways which do exactly this.
> The most typical mode of operation is org-to-org, where all mail
> from an organisation is
BTW, there is such a gateway for OpenPGP at ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/geam/
On 20 Jan 2002 21:46:35 -0500, Derek Atkins said:
> Question: How many users of PGP 2.x are still out there? If people
> have upgraded to more recent versions, then it's not quite as bad.
> OTOH, I have successfully interoperated with PGP 2.6 fairly recently.
Things would get much better if a P
John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Note, however, that there are many things that OpenPGP doesn't do, making
>encrypted email still a pretty sophisticated thing to do. Brad Templeton has
>been kicking around some ideas on how to make zero-UI encryption work (with
>some small UI available f
Actually, I've found it isn't quite that bad. Yes, there are some
problems with some of the odd-man-out features. And yes, there are
certainly problems that only get solved if users upgrade to PGP 6.5.8
or more recent versions of GPG.
I will agree with your assessment of the origin of the probl
These days, PGP is effectively useless for interoperable email. If
you have not prearranged with the recipient, you can't exchange
encrypted mail. And even if you have, one or the other of you will
probably have to change your software, which will produce other ripple
effects if you are trying t
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 17:25:15 -0800, Will Price said:
> above is as well. That's like saying, "have you stopped beating your
> wife?" I would encourage some objectivity on that.
Huh? Go to the gnupg-users lists archive and search for PGP problems.
You will notice a couple of reports wrt PGP 7.0.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 09:42:32AM +0100, Axel H Horns wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2070, at 9:41, Nicholas Brawn wrote:
>
> > What's the state of the game with PGP and GPG compatibility?
>
> Interesting question.
>
> I'm using PGP 6.5.8 for my professional confidential e-mails and
> sometimes I get comp
Will Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SDK (which still includes little bits of your code Derek, and all
> other crypto/network/passphrase and even all the UI code which
> interacts with the crypto related code) has been published up through
> 7.1.1. The Windows GUI was last published at 6.
Werner Koch wrote:
> According to the bug reports I receive for GnuPG, it seems that
> even the latest versions of PGP (7.0.3?) are still not OpenPGP
> compatible.
No, the latest version for Win32 is 7.1.1, and for MacOS 9 it is
7.1.0. I think it should be pointed out what a loaded statement th
Matt Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is there even development on the PGP (product) line? AFAIK
> > they (NAI) have not release PGP 7.x in source form. Worse, there
> > are a couple of bugs I found in 6.5.8 when I was porting it
> > to Tru64, but who knows if anyone is listening over a
> Is there even development on the PGP (product) line? AFAIK
> they (NAI) have not release PGP 7.x in source form. Worse, there
> are a couple of bugs I found in 6.5.8 when I was porting it
> to Tru64, but who knows if anyone is listening over at NAI.
Years ago I bought a few copies of commerci
Is there even development on the PGP (product) line? AFAIK
they (NAI) have not release PGP 7.x in source form. Worse, there
are a couple of bugs I found in 6.5.8 when I was porting it
to Tru64, but who knows if anyone is listening over at NAI.
It's a sad state of affairs. Perhaps I should go i
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:42:32 +0100, Axel H Horns said:
> I'm using PGP 6.5.8 for my professional confidential e-mails and
> sometimes I get complaints from GnuPG users saying they can't use my
> Pubkey.
So, you can't decrypt the attached message? Or does this problem
only occur with another
On Sat, 3 Jan 1970 09:41:26 +1000, Nicholas Brawn said:
> What's the state of the game with PGP and GPG compatibility?
According to the bug reports I receive for GnuPG, it seems that even
the latest versions of PGP (7.0.3?) are still not OpenPGP compatible.
At least they still don't understand v
On 3 Jan 2070, at 9:41, Nicholas Brawn wrote:
> What's the state of the game with PGP and GPG compatibility?
Interesting question.
I'm using PGP 6.5.8 for my professional confidential e-mails and
sometimes I get complaints from GnuPG users saying they can't use my
Pubkey.
Currently I'm prep
What's the state of the game with PGP and GPG compatibility?
Nick
--
Real friends help you move bodies.
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
30 matches
Mail list logo
