Combatting 2.6

One of the ways we might be able to get the general public to not want to 
use the MIT version of 2.5/2.6 would be to get the various professional 
organizations, such as the EFF or CPSR to take a stand questioning the 
security and agenda behind 2.6.

Just a thought.

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

"Robert A. Hayden" says:
> One of the ways we might be able to get the general public to not want to 
> use the MIT version of 2.5/2.6 would be to get the various professional 
> organizations, such as the EFF or CPSR to take a stand questioning the 
> security and agenda behind 2.6.

I'm sure the security is fine. The agenda is probably just Jim Bidzos
getting petty revenge for PRZ having annoyed him. I see nothing
sinister here, although I do see some things that are stupid.
Deliberately sabotaging functionality is not acceptable.

Perry

On Mon, 16 May 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> I'm sure the security is fine. The agenda is probably just Jim Bidzos
> getting petty revenge for PRZ having annoyed him. I see nothing
> sinister here, although I do see some things that are stupid.

Oh, i agree.  Security of 2.6 and the agenda are probably just fine, but 
we've had no independent verification of that security, and revelations 
of the agenda, and being a paranoid cypherpunk who missed woodstock 
(sorry couldn't resist), that is an issure that very much concerns me.  
To push an UNTESTED product with an unknown background forceably to 
replace something we can trust is something I consider to be sinister.

The whole fiasco, from the day the new keyserver restrictions were 
announced, to the half-hearted neta announcement, to this new one, no not 
show a program that has been fully tests.  As if we are supposed to 
accept it just because it has the name PGP on it.  Homey don't play that.

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

"Robert A. Hayden" says:
> On Mon, 16 May 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure the security is fine. The agenda is probably just Jim Bidzos
> > getting petty revenge for PRZ having annoyed him. I see nothing
> > sinister here, although I do see some things that are stupid.
> 
> Oh, i agree.  Security of 2.6 and the agenda are probably just fine, but 
> we've had no independent verification of that security,

Hey, the sources are going to be public. I've already bet $100 that
there is nothing wrong with them.

Perry