[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Combatting 2.6
On Mon, 16 May 1994, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> I'm sure the security is fine. The agenda is probably just Jim Bidzos
> getting petty revenge for PRZ having annoyed him. I see nothing
> sinister here, although I do see some things that are stupid.
Oh, i agree. Security of 2.6 and the agenda are probably just fine, but
we've had no independent verification of that security, and revelations
of the agenda, and being a paranoid cypherpunk who missed woodstock
(sorry couldn't resist), that is an issure that very much concerns me.
To push an UNTESTED product with an unknown background forceably to
replace something we can trust is something I consider to be sinister.
The whole fiasco, from the day the new keyserver restrictions were
announced, to the half-hearted neta announcement, to this new one, no not
show a program that has been fully tests. As if we are supposed to
accept it just because it has the name PGP on it. Homey don't play that.
____ Robert A. Hayden <=> [email protected]
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / 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+(*)