[8164] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Is PGP broken?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralf Senderek)
Sun Dec 3 11:49:45 2000
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:54:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de>
To: "L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.QNWS.0011291526510.6540-100000@thetis.deor.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1001203115025.407A-100000@safe.senderek.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"L. Sassaman" <rabbi@quickie.net> wrote:
> Shameless plug: Ben Laurie and I were discussing this exact topic earlier
> this month. I'm going to England next month to sit down and hash out
> exactly what we want to do, but we would like to add OpenPGP features to
> OpenSSL. [...] I think the benefits of having an
> Apache-style licensed OpenPGP toolkit are obvious.
This is a grand idea and I hope you will receive widespread support.
But I would like to ask you to do me (and others) the favour to interprete
the RFC-2440 (OpenPGP-Standard) in a way that the number of unsigned
packets in signatures is definitely zero. This would be the way one
would think of a signature in the non-digital world anyway.
Good luck,
Ralf
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
* Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de> * What is privacy *
* http://senderek.de * without *
* Tel.: 02432-3960 Sandstr. 60 D-41849 Wassenberg * PGP-2.6.3i? *
*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOio0KSmc/oJTgiNJAQGWjgQAle2fU2syOy/NzHSN8IcUQ0Xi5zZbc9sx
ca2rhOyRnm2TWehdRnt0vzHHl/cOsyOtlGc8407aYiHY0d2wsmbO7/TYumNRW7PO
CJu9PJKIF5nMKVr2HeAJi2g/0jrJI9h1GIewP6rmKURCLzKhhu9FribILAp88OxO
CDFLSWCdzZg=
=qCZ+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
