From:    Shawn McMahon                          Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Shawn K. Quinn                         18 Sep 94 01:24:54
Subject: Changes In PGP 2.6.1                   UpdReq 

Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Shawn K. Quinn said this to 
Shawn McMahon:
 SKQ> I suggest about 1250-1300 (1280?) as a realistic length for 
 SKQ> long-term security. It should give the average 6th grader 
 SKQ> enough time to not worry about making a new key until after 
 SKQ> he/she gets out of college.
Better yet, just recommend 2048 and let his distant descendants still not be 
able to get the data. :-)



201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Shawn McMahon                          Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Thomas Hughes                          18 Sep 94 01:26:22
Subject: 2.6.1 vs. 2.6ac                        UpdReq 

Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Thomas Hughes said this to 
pgp authors:
 TH> has anyone gotten v2.6.1 to work with >1264bit keys?
Only by modifying the source.



201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Shawn McMahon                          Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Shawn K. Quinn                         18 Sep 94 01:28:56
Subject: There goes more freedom!               UpdReq 

Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Shawn K. Quinn said this to 
Jeff Hancock:
 SKQ> Yeah, right. I think we need to send whatever BEANHEAD wrote this 
 SKQ> a very strong message! (At 28800 bps on a Pentium-90 at 
 SKQ> that!)
The text of that message should be "heh heh" signifying the fact that his joke 
(and, BTW, it was a joke) was pretty funny.
Ya bin fished in, Shawn.  :-)



201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Shawn McMahon                          Area: Public Key Encryption
To:      Peter Bradie                           18 Sep 94 01:35:06
Subject: New indecency rules propo              UpdReq 

Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Peter Bradie said this to 
Alan Boritz:
 PB> 'Tain't so, McGee!  The ECPA prohibits the divulging of material 
 PB> that is 'not readily accessible to the general public' to a 
 PB> third party.  If the material is public in an echo, it can be 
 PB> read and divulged.  If flagged "private" to a particular 
 PB> recipient, it may be screened by the sysop but not divulged 
 PB> to others.
Only if such screening is necessary for proper system maintenance, for 
technical reasons.  Content reasons aren't allowed, Peter.  Neither is 
deletion of the message.
 PB> obscene GIFs without the sysop being fully aware of them.  I 
 PB> also seriously doubt that holding a carrier liable for 
 PB> private, obscene E-mail would pass scrutiny under 
 PB> constitutional or statutory law.
Indeed.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight laws that try it anyway, 
because it's gonna be a real expensive fight for the poor schlub who tests it 
in court.
Odds are that he won't get all his equipment back intact, either, and that 
he'll be crucified in the local press.

201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718