[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists

To: Adam Back <aba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf-open-pgp@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:00:55 -0600
In-reply-to: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-open-pgp@xxxxxxx

At 06:52 PM 2/12/98 GMT, Adam Back wrote:
>
>I noticed as a result of Lutz quoting a section from his OpenPGP
>formal spec to cypherpunks that it still refers to ROT-13 (he refers
>to ROT-N).
>
>I that the inclusion of ROT-N was a joke on the part of Jon Callas,
>and that it had been removed from the draft.
>
>I would suggest in the interests of security that it be removed from
>the formal spec also.

I was under the impression it was left in for debugging?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
  - From: Lutz Donnerhacke

References:
- Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
  - From: Adam Back

Prev by Date: Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
Next by Date: Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
Previous by thread: Re: non-standard CFB (Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists)
Next by thread: Re: Lutz formal spec / ROT-13 persists
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread