PGP 2.6 incompatibilities

[VACCINIA@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

First I would like to say that Mr. Bailey is being taken (should have recanted
while you had a chance), that being said, it is worth it to get someone to 
examine the code in a thorough manner. I'll ante up $10 to help alleviate the 
pain of losing this bet, Mr Bailey. Only good things can come of such a bet in 
my opinion. Perhaps, the above code analysis will present some new insights 
into patches and maybe even improvements! 
     
        Someone wrote the list to say that the RSAREF code in 2.5 is not as 
good as Phil's, MIT seems to agree since it now has implimented new RSA code 
"while you wait". I'm not using this new code unless the type of patch Adam 
Shostack has suggested is implemented, that is, it is fully compatible with 
previous (i.e. 2.3, 2.3a, 2.4) versions. This attempt at divide and conquer 
cannot be allowed. I would like to use a PGP which does not violate 
intellectual property rights (no matter the shaky legal patent grounds, at 
least here in the U.S.), but I'm not willing to use an "us" (americans, 
canadians) version of PGP leaving "them" (anyone else) totally incompatible.
That just incapacitates all of us. Bring on PGP 2.6a.

Scott G. Morham            !The First,
VACCINIA@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu!          Second  
PGP Public Keys by Request !                and Third Levels 
                           !      of Information Storage and Retrieval
                           !DNA,
                           !    Biological Neural Nets,
                           !                           Cyberspace


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLdfjrD2paOMjHHAhAQGSmQQA11SRVxevsL3NNvaBRyYc0yzqLjfxJ3dN
7I2leHc73nRwPwhhUJt2xeooHLlAlOHtLa+FBcbz8E03/vd8aBe7G0t7I4h0pSoB
ujT5FRrArqV2x7AlVZquhbRECJ2nhwcIxN862GLvOYYQtIbC7NKvOYCFYMVt0p+x
N1/28tvfRD4=
=EB2O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----