Re: Keyserver service outRAGE

Mr. Toal says:

->
Uni, hush now, shut up, and listen.  You've entirely missed the point here.
This is a major tactical strike for pgp.  We finally have an entirely
legal pgp, thanks to some excellent net.politics from the guys at MIT.
 
The restriction on what new keys they accept was part of the deal, but
stop and think what it really means - is it going to affect *anybody*?
And what's to stop you fetching 2.5 and loading/re-dumping your old
key from that version?
<-

No, you've entirely missed the point here.

If the MIT brass is so adept at politics why has no one realized that
this change is not going to affect *anybody*.

Clearly the keys are either indistinguishable from version to version
other than the plaintext version number, or this policy will actually
accomplish something.

Why would those involved give up "so much" (At least they have been
fighting so hard for it) for what amounts to NOTHING?

If you're not suspicious....


In any case, I hope your right.  I hope PGP2.5 is a dream come true.
Problems remain.

Mac users are out in the cold.
In the final analysis the MIT server is trying to compell behavior for
no apparent reasons.

The fact that this was a requirement for some "DEAL" really makes me
wonder who in the administration was at the negotiating table and
I really hope they are on the other side of the table in the next
negotiation I have to do.

OR

They are indeed as sly as you say, and it is YOU who does not understand
the true depth of the politics.

I hope the former, I wonder about the latter.

Rather than everyone freaking out about 2.5, why not just wait a few
hours until the FTP site is announced and look at the thing for
ourselves?

Myself, I'm running on the assumption that this is a good thing,
because now PGP is completely legal in the U.S., and doubtless a PGP
thats legal overseas using a library compatible with RSAREF will
appear within days of release.

Perry

Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net> writes:

>Mac users are out in the cold.
>In the final analysis the MIT server is trying to compell behavior for
>no apparent reasons.
> 
>The fact that this was a requirement for some "DEAL" really makes me
>wonder who in the administration was at the negotiating table and
>I really hope they are on the other side of the table in the next
>negotiation I have to do.
> 
>OR
> 
>They are indeed as sly as you say, and it is YOU who does not understand
>the true depth of the politics.


I don't see why RSA would waste their time trying to get one keyserver
to stop accepting keys from PGP 2.3a, when there are plenty of others
availiable. (And most people just put their keys in their finger/plan
files and don't bother to put them on the keyservers anyway.)  My first
guess would be that they wanted to create some incentive to use the
newer version of PGP.  But that's ridiculous - its legally licensed RSA
code is supposed to be the incentive to use it.  So playing games with
the keyserver is rather ridiculous.  However, RSA is well known for
irrational thought, such as complaining about PGP, but giving away RIPEM
for free.  So maybe this is just their twisted way of trying to gain
themselves (in their own minds) some publicity or credibility or
whatever.  However, I suspect RSA is doing this for legal/political
reasons too.  It's pretty hard for them to claim patent infringement
against anyone with all these people "infringing" on their patent by
using PGP, and them not doing anything about it.  If they can get people
to use RSAREF PGP, they don't set as strong a precedent for not
defending their patent.  It then might be easier for them to claim
patent infringement in other cases.  But that's just a guess.