Re: OT: Is pgp 2.6.X considered old?
Thanks for the quick replies. There is no "pgp" link to pgp5. I see a set
of executable links from the manpage.
Mutt expects "pgp." What is the best approach to integrate these together?
Kenward
On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 11:49:48AM -0700, Eric Hanchrow wrote:
> >>>>> "Kenward" == Kenward Vaughan <kaynjay@igalaxy.net> writes:
>
> Kenward> I just installed pgp last night, read some mail this AM,
> Kenward> and got a "need newer pgp version" message from a tagged
> Kenward> post. I haven't used pgp before, so don't know if the
> Kenward> "older" version is considered really old now. Can
> Kenward> someone toss the answer to this my way, please?
>
> The answer is "yes".
>
> If you want to use PGP, consider version 5 (it lives in the Debian
> package named `pgp5i'). On the other hand, you might consider GnuPG
> instead -- it's *almost* completely compatible with PGP (alas, there
> are some incompatibilities with PGP version 2), and is entirely free.
> (It's in package `gnupg').
>
> --
> PGP Fingerprint: 3E7B A3F3 96CA 8958 ACC5 C8BD 6337 0041 C01C 5276
>
Reply to: