L. Sassaman
Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:42:37 -0700 (PDT)

Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Werner Koch wrote:

> That is the reason why there are these experimental/private packet
> numbers.
And also the reason that the X.509 certificate takes those numbers. At the time of the photo-id creation, it was fully expected to be part of the standard.
> These whole compatibilty story to PGP remembers me a bit of the strategy
> other (big) verndors are driving. Take a standard, add some nice little
> gadget which is not covered by the standard and claim that you use the new
> Standard. Microsoft did this recently with Kerberos.
Ugh. Please don't compare PGP to Microsoft. Microsoft intentionally broke Kerberos so that people would be forced to use its products. (Or that's my take on it anyway). Believe me, breaking the OpenPGP standard is the last thing we want to do. Here's the original proposal: - --Len. __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | Technology Consultant | [This space for rent] icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger:// | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE4+nokPYrxsgmsCmoRAkjeAJsFMwqA/5JzASQ9ShEQzQJwkMO2hwCgju1C ogGkdXb2TtLS0t9nVeP6tOg= =7XqZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----