At 03:25 PM 10/24/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote: [Busy week. Expect increased response time].
If the pgp5.5 functionality is designed to provide companies with a disaster recovery procedure (forgotten passphrase, or dead employee), there are much better ways to do it. We're not arguing against the user requirement, just against the methodology.
There have been numerous proposals on the list to accomplish the above goals in a way other than the method employed by PGP. I have read the proposals and I am not convinced that said proposals are less intrusive. IMO the vast majority of the proposals I saw are more intrusive. One subscriber even argued, make that screamed, that PGP 5.5 was evil because it didn't automatically cc: the email to the corporate recovery agent. The mind boggles. --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/