[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Replacing/phasing out PGP (was Re: Idea for non-free organization)



On Sat, Jul 04, 1998 at 12:18:59PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I don't read -private.  I still need to get a key signed to become a
> > developer.  Working on that still.  =>  However, I really think this should
> > be in -announce or -devel-announce since it affects more than just developers
> > really.
> 
> More than "just developers", eh? ;)
> 
> Joseph, some developers don't have time to read -devel, although they are
> supposed to be subscribed. All are supposed to be subscribed to and read
> -private, so private is the correct place for this.
> 
> I think the relevant new maintainer documents will be updated then, once
> the decision was made.

It seems that the best place would be then both -private and -devel-announce
with followups to -private.  In addition, the new maintainer docs being
updated would be a good thing.


> BTW: Has someone the capability to judge if gpg is *secure*?
> 
> Is the algorithm the same as in pgp? Is the key generation secure? I'm in
> favour for free software, but let's not sacrifice secureness (or we could
> drop signing at all). Note: gpg must be secure at the time we *generate* the
> keys, not sometime later.

The new patent-free algorithms found in PGP5 are in gpg as well as others
such as Blowfish.  Keys are protected much like they are in PGP.

Attachment: pgpo22vxq10Vd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: