Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: New US Rep to ISO C
Message-ID: <10126@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 26 Apr 89 08:13:24 GMT
References: <6.UUL1.3#5077@aussie.UUCP> <2663@buengc.BU.EDU> <39709@think.UUCP> <1989Apr26.023157.18763@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <1989Apr26.023157.18763@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As opposed to the prohibition on exporting crypt(1), which is childish
>invented-here syndrome...   :-) :-) :-)

As I recall, crypt(1 not 3) -- which is of no national security significance
since it discloses no secrets and any competent cryptographic agency can
readily break it (indeed there is a "crypt breaker's workbench" in the net
archives!) -- was removed from recent "international" releases of UNIX by
AT&T on their own initiative, to avoid possible hassles, not at the request
of any government agency (Commerce Dept. would most likely be the one, and
naturally they don't have in-house cryptographic expertise but rely on
guidance from other agencies).

(How's that for a sentence?)

In other words, nearly everybody agrees that it was silly.
(Even more so since the code was distributed internationally previously!)
But what do you expect when bureaucrats and lawyers are involved?