Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability

Steve,

thanks for calling this matter to attention. We have an application
which really needs to carry unencrypted, signed components,
preferably in a single, portmanteau message. It is part of a
transaction in which several distinct parties are signing
their parts of the transaction. Has anyone dealt with this 
kind of application in an effective way?

Vint

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Russ_Housley . McLean_CSD Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Peter Williams Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Stephen D Crocker Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Raymond Lau Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Jeffrey I. Schiller Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Vinton G. Cerf Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Steve Kent Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Vinton G. Cerf <= Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, gvb Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Brad Huntting RE: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Ned Freed Re:: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Rex A. Buddenberg

Previous by Date:	Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Steve Kent
Next by Date:	Protocol Action: Privacy Enhanced Mail to Proposed Standard, IESG Secretary
Previous by Thread:	Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, Steve Kent
Next by Thread:	Re: Forwarding: Re: PEM - X.400 interoperability, gvb
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]