[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Technical Description of PGP 5.5
At 03:25 PM 10/24/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
[Busy week. Expect increased response time].
>If the pgp5.5 functionality is designed to provide companies with a
>disaster recovery procedure (forgotten passphrase, or dead employee),
>there are much better ways to do it. We're not arguing against the
>user requirement, just against the methodology.
There have been numerous proposals on the list to accomplish the above
goals in a way other than the method employed by PGP. I have read the
proposals and I am not convinced that said proposals are less intrusive.
IMO the vast majority of the proposals I saw are more intrusive. One
subscriber even argued, make that screamed, that PGP 5.5 was evil because
it didn't automatically cc: the email to the corporate recovery agent. The
mind boggles.
--Lucky Green <[email protected]>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
http://rc5.distributed.net/