-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Ian,
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:30:08 +0100, you wrote:
I am amazed that this thread is still running several weeks after you
started it, with virtually every response refuting your arguments...
And what amazes me, is that you have yet to grasp what we are
talking about! Please re-read the thread, some issues have
been addressed. I sincerely hope that you re-read each and
every message in that thread, because, you are taylor made
for the kind of attacks which can be inflicted to your
OpenPGP keys.
One person's eccentricity is another person's operational requirement.
OpenPGP should be flexible enough to accomodate both.
Exactly, it's an operational requirement, therefore, please
by all means exclude such requirements from a standard,
You seem unable to understand the difference between enabling
functionality through a standard and mandating it. RFC 2440 has allowed
subkeys for several years now. You need to make the case to remove this
functionality better than you have done so far.
No problems, I mean what can I say???
If on the other hand you feel that these operational
requirement are the best thing since sliced bread, than by
all means, spawn another RFC to standardize them.
RFC 2440 was published five years ago. I look forward to your draft
removing multiple subkey capability from it.
I am no paper pusher, and do not have the funding or time/ability
to publish RFC's
And no offence,
Best Regards
Imad R. Faiad
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 8.0.2irf
Comment: KeyID: 0xBCC31718833F1BAD
Comment: Fingerprint: 75CD 96A7 8ABB F87E 9390 5FD7 2A88 4F45
iQEVAwUBPv8ea7zDFxiDPxutAQItUAf+OPJV0E9nqAS+FdL9blF77rjp78FuLMRc
PLHLVJJtP6bXUx2kCK0N72JeCdb7300+elekoKbRkbQ4gHOA/MRioZDpQdSp2Dpi
9tdjyBKJVy/RiGy0j2j/EuP9RyxIIZ8drdpyw+omenIUEWlj6s82NfVpZZNqLlos
EjDkhmICgJSQU2AKZMY5lNE4zBVLZIUGMWyvSx0uz8fppP+pJ7ScP8gSJJXb4LCH
+go3sioEjG/zSn2jpgQPEIEOcAtystdqfzeVopnl4Qm9CLSwzWvftjIXkRdkUFZK
ygk/1efgfdB0K79AePkP2aQK4Cilupm6FWTk6a3j/J4FT6s/IzF64g==
=Zgqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----