Blowfish160 and OpenPGP
wk at isil.d.shuttle.de
Mon May 25 20:47:00 CEST 1998
"Juergen A. Erhard" <jae at laden.ilk.de> writes:
> Ain't killing Blowfish160 too much hassle?
No and already done.
> Mind you, I don't know much about all this... but I wonder whether we
> really have to be OpenPGP compliant in all respects.
It is good to have standards and the latest draft has most of the
stuff I wanted.
> I seem to recall 'GNU is compatible, but also more powerful' or
Sure it will be :-)
> Can't we make up some format that is a superset of OpenPGP?
We have some extensions which are not defined by OpenPGP but possible
by the old RFC1991 - a part of OpenPGP is that is is open for
extensions; the problem is that there is not yet a way defined to add
new algorithm identifiers to the standard. I'm sure that we find a
way to address such issues in a "open" way.
> I really don't like OpenPGP to make some (potential... beneficial?)
> features of GPG impossible (illegal?).
Goal is to be OpenPGP compliant as far we are not violating the GPL.
BTW: We need a 3DES implementation.
More information about the Gnupg-devel