Wed Jul 25 18:00:01 2001

Hash: SHA1

Hi there, Anthony E. Greene,

On 25 July 2001, I received the following message from you regarding

> >That doesn't mean I have to agree with all he says; he is entitled
> >his own opinion, however much I disagree with it. But if he is
> >FACTUALLY there is more in the Windows binary of GnuPG than in the
> >source code, and that cannot be put down to compiler code, I would
> >have to trust him until he is proven wrong.
> That all but accuses Werner Koch of distributing a deliberately
> Windows binary. After reading Imad's writings on the GPL and on
> compiled binaries, I'd need more than his say so to think Werner
> would have anything to do with such such a scheme.
No it doesn't, and I wish you would all stop personalizing this. Nobody is accusing anybody else of doing anything, but saying that there is more in the Windows binary of GnuPG that cannot be put down to compiler code, which could be due to anything. I, for one, would like an independent analysis which would confirm or deny this once and for all. When we speak of cryptographic programs, I am very dependent on reputation and experience to give me trust. Until I know more of Werner I am not going to trust him as much as those I do know through practise and experience, including Imad. Imad has stated something FACTUALLY which may or may not be true; until it is proven to be false then I have to be cautious. You, on the other hand, are saying that you trust Werner more on the basis of practise and experience; I respect that, and we have an honest difference of views. - -- Graham <> Please use my PGP/GnuPG Key ID: 0xE935DB9D Written on 25 July 2001 16:43:36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - GnuPGshell v1.80x Comment: Powered By Becky!2 Comment: Please encrypt and sign for internet security iD8DBQE7XuydIwtBZOk1250RAh3NAKCGbouPcXoXL9ofZ9ziIfHzGQzTWACgywMH 3mGk5Nu5bMopiFJ4DKiWX2w= =cW0R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----