On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 09:31 -0600, Michael Halcrow wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:05:17PM -0700, Stuartyin Jansen wrote: > > I'm curious what the motivation for that decision is. > > Right. That's why I am not signing any messages until the situation > gets ironed out. It is looking like all PGP digital signatures are > now subject to forgery.
I find it curious that you only replied to half of my message. Have you ever watched a lock smith open a car? I've had the misfortune of watching it several times. One time, my car was unlocked in less than 30 seconds. (Faster if you don't count the time it took him to get out of his truck and walk over to my car.) Does that mean that I've stopped locking my car? Heck no! I can understand not designing any new algorithmns using SHA1. I can't understand completely abandoning a protocol just because of a discovery that will takes months or years to generalize. Seems to me you're being unreasonably extremist. Me, I'll continue to lock my car doors the old fashioned way until they start to start selling quantum locks. -- Stuart Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim:StuartMJansen http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? see also: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
