[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15

To: ietf-open-pgp@imc.org
Subject: Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
From: Werner Koch <wk@isil.d.shuttle.de>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:12:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <199905180250.WAA06464@domains.invweb.net>; from William H. Geiger III on Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:35:22PM -0400
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-open-pgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-open-pgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-open-pgp@imc.org
References: <99May17.201900edt.42114@brickwall.ceddec.com> <199905180250.WAA06464@domains.invweb.net>
Sender: owner-ietf-open-pgp@imc.org
User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.1i

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net> writes:

> I don't think that the X.509 packet alone should qualify as a valid
> SelfSignature but instead during the conversion process a OpenPGP

We should not discuss the contents of private packets here.  I mailed
this only as an explanation why we mighgt have those problems with the
signature packets.  And becuase the public key algo 0 violates the
RFC, we should only dicusss, whether it might make sense to allow such 
an extension.  

-- 
Werner Koch at guug.de           www.gnupg.org           keyid 621CC013

References:
- Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
  - From: Tom Zerucha
- Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
  - From: William H. Geiger III

Prev by Date: Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
Next by Date: Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
Previous by thread: Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
Next by thread: Re: MDCs and PGP 6.5.1b15
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread