🚀 go-pugleaf

louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.135015.19748@cubetech.com> andrew@cubetech.com writes:

>If FEE is legal to use in the US, then why did it mysteriously
>disappear from 3.0?  Is NeXT afraid of a legal challange from RSA?
>I've been very curious about this since the early 3.0 announcements
>made a really big deal about this capability.

I believe that the answer NeXT gave was that it didn't want to have
an international/domestic version, and to worry about some NeXTs not
understanding some e-mails while others can.  So, it was dropped
from this release.    Basically, they were waiting to hear from the
Gov't. if they would be allowed to export it, and they heard from
NSA/whomever that they could not (sometime between PR1 and PR2).

>The principles behind RSA are pretty well known; the source code to
>PGP is also available.  I would be a higher degree of trust in this
>software rather then a "black box" with unknown properties.

>If you don't believe that you can use PGP legally, perhaps you should
>wait for the RIPEM package to become avialable, which is distributed
>with the RSAREF software from RSA.  I believe that you will be able to
>use this software for non-commercial purposes with RSA's blessing.
>RIPEM messages look somewhat like PEM, though it doesn't use
>certificates, just "bare" public/private keys.

Does blessing = $$$ as it supposedly does now?  (I am under the
impression that you can use things like PGP if you get a license
from Public Key Partners)
-- 
David Lemson                                                (217) 244-1205
University of Illinois NeXT Campus Consultant / CCSO NeXT Lab System Admin
Internet : lemson@uiuc.edu                UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson 
NeXTMail accepted                                  BITNET : LEMSON@UIUCVMD