M.B.Jr. wrote:
> All in all, it looks like IDEA, even if totally freed, is sentenced to
> gradual abandonment. Is this perception of mine correct?
It is more accurate to say it has already been abandoned. Very few
people today use IDEA as a symmetric cipher for OpenPGP messages.
On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:11 PM, M.B.Jr. wrote:
Gentlemen,
I really appreciate the comments you've made on the subject and the
little debates as well.
That was exactly what I was expecting.
Sometimes, regular users do not have the proper notion of whether some
functionality merits attention.
All
Gentlemen,
I really appreciate the comments you've made on the subject and the
little debates as well.
That was exactly what I was expecting.
Sometimes, regular users do not have the proper notion of whether some
functionality merits attention.
All in all, it looks like IDEA, even if totally fre
On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Johan Wevers wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
If the "some people" still want this, I haven't seen it in a good
long
while. Possibly they gave up asking.
Probably. However, if someone wants IDEA support for whatever reason
there
is still the IDEA plugin. It still wo
David Shaw wrote:
>If the "some people" still want this, I haven't seen it in a good long
>while. Possibly they gave up asking.
Probably. However, if someone wants IDEA support for whatever reason there
is still the IDEA plugin. It still works with GnuPG 1.4.10 for both Linux
and Windows, alth
ved...@hush.com wrote:
> if only there were a gnupg mini-version with a shorter source-code,
> (or at least one that's readable by someone looking at it from
> scratch, not just reading the updates and patches as they go along)
> then i'd gladly switch
This is doable. I did this in '99 for GnuPG
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:40:02 -0400
>From: David Shaw
>If the "some people" still want this, I haven't seen it in a good
>long while. Possibly they gave up asking.
as an old-time pgp 2.x user,
have often put the question to some of the die-hard remailer 2.6
users:
'why don'
On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
Whether this means IDEA is okay or not patent-wise, I have a slightly
different take on this: who cares about IDEA at this point? IDEA was
good back in the 90s and PGP 2.x. It's 2009 now, and we have better
ciphers than ID
David Shaw wrote:
> If the "some people" still want this, I haven't seen it in a good long
> while. Possibly they gave up asking.
Gave up the asking, more likely. I still get one or two emails a year
inquiring about if/when GnuPG will support this. (No, I don't know why
they email me, and I wis
David Shaw wrote:
> Whether this means IDEA is okay or not patent-wise, I have a slightly
> different take on this: who cares about IDEA at this point? IDEA was
> good back in the 90s and PGP 2.x. It's 2009 now, and we have better
> ciphers than IDEA, a massive installed software base that doesn'
On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 12:46PM, "Robert J. Hansen"
wrote:
>M.B.Jr. wrote:
>> I've recently had access to this document, written by the "United
>> States Patent and Trademark Office" (USPTO) which basically tries to
>> ban software patents.
>
>The memorandum in question is eight p
On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:56 PM, M.B.Jr. wrote:
Hi list,
I've recently had access to this document, written by the "United
States Patent and Trademark Office" (USPTO) which basically tries to
ban software patents.
The memorandum is here:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_int
M.B.Jr. wrote:
> I've recently had access to this document, written by the "United
> States Patent and Trademark Office" (USPTO) which basically tries to
> ban software patents.
The memorandum in question is eight pages, twenty slides and two flowcharts.
As a ballpark estimate that would mean it
13 matches
Mail list logo
