-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At some point hitherto, David Kramer hath spake thusly:
> I really wish the pgp commands were covered too, because there's far from
> being a 1-to-1 matchup.  I would post what I came up with, but I'm not
> sure it's right,  and I ended up doing some of it in perl scripts anyway.
[SNIP]
> 
> Any hints?  Thanks.

IMO, the best advice I can give you is switch to GPG.  I think it's
supported better, and easier to use (though this may just be personal
preference).  Also, I've no idea what version you're using, but I've
also heard in various security circles that NAI has mucked with the
code for more recent versions of PGP at NSA's request.  I will not
speculate as to whether this is rumor or substantiated fact...

I will however point out that GPG is open, free, and funded by
companies in several non-US countries, so I doubt the NSA or any other
government agency has had much influence on how it was coded.  And, as
mwl pointed out last night, it implmements a more complete version of
the OpenPGP spec.

- -- 
Derek Martin               ddm@pizzashack.org    
- ---------------------------------------------
I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG!
GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu
Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8IgMwdjdlQoHP510RAuIjAJ48eB4W5i1GHzpa9IjbCqrkuL86cgCcDZ06
RdDNRHa1i1s4asEN59XOu3I=
=x5zT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----