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

Re: Signature calculation language

To: ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Signature calculation language
From: Werner Koch <wk@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:55:09 +0200
In-reply-to: <> (David Shaw's message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:50:34 -0400")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Openpgp: id=5B0358A2; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:50:34 -0400, David Shaw said:

> I support making 0x19 backsigs a MUST.

I concur with David.  I am actually a heavy user of signing subkeys
because they allow to keep the primary key offline.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Signature calculation language
  - From: Jon Callas
- Re: Signature calculation language
  - From: Jon Callas

References:
- Re: Signature calculation language
  - From: "Hal Finney"
- Re: Signature calculation language
  - From: David Shaw

Prev by Date: Re: Multiple signatures in clearsigned messages (was Re: Cleartext Signatures)
Next by Date: Re: Multiple signatures in clearsigned messages (was Re: Cleartext Signatures)
Previous by thread: Re: Signature calculation language
Next by thread: Re: Signature calculation language
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread