Talk:PGP word list

message: In trying to work out whether this article should be renamed to PGP words (as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions), I can't actually find mention of these PGP words anywhere on the Internet. Where did they come from? --Tim 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: This article refers to the same subject matter as the article biometric word list.  They should be merged together. (prz 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added  tags. Not too sure which article name should remain though, because there's not many places to reference it. --Tim 09:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Phil, could you be clear on which title you prefer,  PGP word list or biometric word list? The later is more generic. We will have redirects in any case.--agr 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with biometric word list

message: Would it be appropriate to mention that recent advances in neural-net-based speech synthesis are making it possible to imitate voices convincingly?  Meaning that this technology may already be obsolete.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-ai-tech-can-mimic-any-voice/
I think that PGP Words may be imperfect, but is better than (or less wrong than) PGP words. It's not words-in-general as they apply PGP but a word list that derives from PGP. There may be other titles that are more right (or less wrong) than either of the two, but if you pick between the two, it should be capitalized.
I think that a merger is warranted, as the later article completely supercedes the original one, and has the additional advantage of having been worked on by two primary sources (Zimmermann and me). This article, which contains the entire list is the most specific. The other one is the general topic and notes that the only specific example of a biometric word list is the PGP Word List. 
Logical things to do include removing the general one, or reducing it to a stub with a pointer to the specific one. There are other reasonable things to do, as well. --Jdcc 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: My goal with this article was to bust it out of the PGP ghetto, since it has a larger application.  The global software company I work for often has needs to communicate binary values over voice channels, uses not at all connected with PGP fingerprints.
Before we could use this in our work, I need to be sure that it was free of intellectual property restrictions.  I acquired a review copy of the source code, found the word lists, but noted that they were copyrights.  Modern times... <sigh>  I considered doing an RFC in collaboratin with PGP, Inc., but this seemed overkill, and it is not exactly networking specific.  It struck me that publishing the word list in Wikipedia, with permission from PGP, Inc., would be the perfect solution.
I interacted with Jon Callas, the current CTO, of PGP, Inc. and he agreed.  I asked him to review my draft and to replace the informal IP release attribution with something more official.  I even suggested that he sign it with a PGP key, since this is a good advertisement for the power of the PGP signature.  Jon changed some of the wording in IP disclaimer but has so far decline to replace it.
I am thrilled at the edits applied to this article by Phil and Jon.  The power of this communication mechanism still causes my mind to reel. TooTallSid 17:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The release is welcome, but it should have been submitted through OTRS, as we have no way of verifying that you actually obtained permission. Since the license of the project has changed since you obtained this permission, you may have to contact them again to request permission under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and carefully follow the directions given there. In particular, you must forward your permission e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Dcoetzee 09:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Author Comments 

message: Comparing the key fingerprint = 5C 39 76 D5 DD E2 9E C2 56 2C A2 91 C7 91 65 F9
quoted in http://www.mathcs.duq.edu/~juola/papers.d/icslp96.pdf
It's stated to be 
 'escape crossover hotdog speculate swelter torpedo puppy reproduce egghead combustion quota molecule spaniel molecule fracture Waterloo' 
but this word list generates 
 'escape corporate inverse specialist swelter tomorrow quiver repellent egghead Chicago rebirth miracle soybean miracle fracture Waterloo' 
I suspect that a few words have been added or deleted after the paper was written. Which is the accurate listing for the real algorithm?
Andy Dingley 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC6189 references an older version (of 2010) of this article as a reference for PGP word list. So I guess it was accurate at the time. Tzafrir (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the word list accurate?

message: I have seen references to BASE256 on the internet (see http://zfoneproject.com/docs/ietf/draft-zimmermann-avt-zrtp-06.html#anchor5) and it seems to imply that this is it? Sandos (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Base256

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on PGP word list. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080302025836/http://www.tothink.com:80/mnemonic/ to http://www.tothink.com/mnemonic/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The table format that was in this version of the page seems more useful than the current version, since it clearly displays the even and odd words for each byte of hex and allows for easy conversion by just looking at the page. Thoughts on undoing that change and reverting to the table format?
Okay19 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The table is a pain to copy-paste.  Also a list of words should IMHO be presented as such : a list of comma-separated words.  Besides, the byte and hex value offer no useful information.   The even and odd words can be shown in two different lists.  Their one-to-one correspondance does not seem pertinent to me.--Grondilu (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table format vs plain text