[Top] [All Lists]

Re: hand huffman encoding at PGP world HQ

1997-11-24 02:53:07

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.

Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv