Faramir wrote: > Maybe they need to force compatibility with PGP 6.x... I recall > recently there was some talk about the length of supported hash > algorithms in PGP 6.x, but it was in another list (PGP-Basics list maybe?).
IIRC, it was regarding John Moore's signatures failing to verify under PGP 8.x. This was due to John using SHA512 as a signature algorithm, and PGP 8.x not supporting that algorithm. As David says, PGP 6.x is long in the tooth. It's a decade old at this point -- more; I think it came out in '98. IMO, it ought be abandoned for security reasons. It was written in '97-'98. That means it predates even Windows 98. Windows has changed /enormously/ since then. Neither Network Associates nor PGP Corporation ever certified PGP 6.x for use on Windows 2000 machines, and now that we've seen XP come and go, are seeing Vista get deployed, and have Windows 7 on the way... ... well. You have to ask some questions. What are the odds that something PGP 6.x depends upon will have changed in some subtle way over the last ten years? And do you really want to take that risk? _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
