Re: what is GPG's #1 objective: security or anti-patent stance ( Re: on the state of PGP compatibility (2nd try))

2002-04-04 Thread Peter Gutmann
Adam Back <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Back in the days of pgp2.x I used to receive and send a fair proportion of >mail encrypted with pgp; these days it is a much lower proportion, and a >rather high proportion of those fail. It's not like I'm using old software or >failing to try what is reaso

Re: what is GPG's #1 objective: security or anti-patent stance ( Re: on the state of PGP compatibility (2nd try))

2002-03-31 Thread David Shaw
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:34:35AM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > Hi > > I've trimmed the Cc line a bit as this is now focussing more on GPG > and not adding any thing new technically for the excluded set. > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 06:08:14PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > The OpenPGP spec handles co