Re: Sign Only implimenation.

["William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <3.0.3.32.19980717152249.00c2fea0@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 07/17/98 
   at 03:22 PM, Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxx> said:

>At 10:32 AM 7/17/98 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>   
>   >From my reading the OpenPGP requires both encryption and digital
>   signatures.  However for some applications authenication without
>   encryption is needed, would it be possable to alter the wording to
>allow
>   signature only implimenations?
>   
>Opinions? I think he's got a good point and am ashamed that I overlooked
>this myself, but is there a way to fix this at this late date?

I don't have a problem with the change, seems logical to me.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://users.invweb.net/~whgiii/pgp.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: He who laughs last uses OS/2.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a-sha1
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBNa/cBI9Co1n+aLhhAQHmpQP7BBRG+eBceIrnrsAOO+7qfrvIsER0kYax
LjE0GTxXxYM/SH+ifqp+4x9FxJ4IIc44DHsjdbYPJurRTzfvqRRseGaD7WVEZyoA
IrWjpgK4vU3ynPOlnujJYqOKp7tsvBRwpN1dFey281WaMAPz1PuBHeunncBIZLWP
QUqTRMJjmr0=
=BO49
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----