-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Ian Brown wrote:
I also absolutely agree with Adam's suggestion of simplifying data
structures. I'm just starting to implement PGP 5 packets; they are
*horrendously* over-complicated by the facts Adam mentioned. As he has
said before, "bits are cheap" - we can spare a few here and there ;-)
I would have to dissagry with this comment. There is anouther signiture
standard wich seems to approxmitly double the size of the post. If this
item is mailed to a popular email list or a usenet newsgroup, it is very
likely that the cost of sending redundent bits will eceed any value lost
by forgery.
[...]
Of course keep the description of the current system for backward
compatibility as a MAY.
It is my view that meany peaple are under valueing backwards
compatibility. The first thing that peaple are going to ask when thay
download there new Open-PGP based product is "Will this work with PGP?".
We must view backward compatibility as one of the over wealming factor
that should only be sacrifesed for a condtion that would stop us from
getting O-PGP into the 'marketplace'. Niceities like tidying up the
presentaion layer protocol (Mime vs Ascii armor) or the way PGP veiws
objects is not worth loosing the related backwards capisty.
- --
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett. I do not reply to munged addresses.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNHk8yaQK0ynCmdStAQGhkwP/W9fmq3wVxERv362LEFtr7Le7C59Qjg+i
qWY1PcWZk1QMVYPUnkXSYEkHrlAV4wKSo87wuuQY5id5V9/y2SLqIb72+w4LrNKA
n7NTrBfx3gd7wxWVvllBmPzWebxz8q/0aRg062d7cj3QYrA2NAwV/F1mEK76zTYl
8GqGjgWVWAU=
=45r6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----