On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 09:22:36AM -0700, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> > In fact, BZIP2 was added pretty much for archival purposes:
> > http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/msg04624.html
> >
> > I wouldn't be against LZMA if it was significantly better than BZIP2.
>
> My
David Shaw wrote:
> In fact, BZIP2 was added pretty much for archival purposes:
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/msg04624.html
>
> I wouldn't be against LZMA if it was significantly better than BZIP2.
My understanding of the reason behind compression in OpenPGP is that it
was less
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:30:15PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> > LZMA seems to be notably[1] faster/better than BZIP2, which has made
> > it into the standard so I wouldn't immediately rule out its
> > suitability for OpenPGP.
> >
>
> How well was LZMA known when BZIP2 made it in? Why was BZIP2 includ
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 04:49:11PM -0600, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> On 1/20/06, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's always possible for someone to add a nonstandard algorithm, but
> > if you really want a particular algorithm, it's healthier to get the
> > OpenPGP working group to add it of
Roscoe wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Ryan Malayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The RAR compression algorithm proprietary and closed source, so it is
>>not likely to make it into any standards. RARlabs has refused for
>>years to allow anyone else to make RAR encoders (although they exist
>>in violation
LZMA seems to be notably[1] faster/better than BZIP2, which has made
it into the standard so I wouldn't immediately rule out its
suitability for OpenPGP.
That said I don't much think it should be included. It could *replace*
BZIP2 but replacing BZIP2 with LZMA would break backwards
compatibility a
