PGP 2.5 problems?

So what are the problems with PGP 2.5? If this is legal in the USA
(& CA), and interoperates with 2.3(a) and 2.4, what's the problem?
Doesn't that satisfy short-term needs adequately?

It seems to me that if PGP 2.5 is any good, PKP might have blundered
mightily by allowing MIT to release it to the world at large, and are
now trying to "rectify" the problem by burying it as best they can.

So, again, what are the problems with PGP 2.5, if any?

-- 
dat@ebt.com (David Taffs)

On Tue, 17 May 1994, David Taffs wrote:

> So, again, what are the problems with PGP 2.5, if any?

I don't remember them all, but I believe this is many of them:
	no independent testing (ie, we're told it works, that's all)
	Will not work with non-U.S. and CA people
	Limit of 1024-bit keys
	questionable political influences
	still no independent testing (what if there's a backdoor for the NSA?)
	Just plain rude

Meybe there's others as well, that's all I remember off the top of my 
noggin'.


____        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+(*)