IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ietf-privacy] protocol discussion

F_against <f_against@protonmail.com> Tue, 03 April 2018 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <f_against@protonmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7304812EA64 for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vvsNgJzUpGGc for <ietf-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail5.protonmail.ch (mail5.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F0E212E8B0 for <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:32:53 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1522783975; bh=GfqejH1kbCb/qDAAYKoTzb0VclfKJ8WK+PgxKdDOQeE=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Feedback-ID:From; b=a3qSl7RsEdc40/h1e08WAQdQyOVlz/lEq3eeCft0mOG6QN93sWdC2V3OK4Tq1xirP Tq+qwwWGetSoFfepDzJplus/o+AaRNVdcb9WVC4u8yngMlx1I6F+KH5TUQ7UlqsF43 9JmpaD07JJjjA1sUgmzRFIr4dN+YdqvEDUeouA4w=
To: "ietf-privacy@ietf.org" <ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
From: F_against <f_against@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: F_against <f_against@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <3MAQ6M1tPggPvHftmQw7aTiWFOtqKife0JD9XL884XYpcJsybJHf144FOhmbl4piOji6qyxVsvgo2D_mQbrQBUKsSZrH3uY4VwQBM-FoHSw=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: k56xQq7_TYsnTMoUxbfBMmJtguUP1KkoQupyqZ8Bsq2d0y8N8qccnJzvAV9Q8xV4JeRm5gAaQ7vGTrHjZ4vDfQ==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_14eaf02ecf331f62c7d4946fdcbddf41"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-privacy/6rd5DrvcYVDJ1A4wy-J7ebaEvYY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:33:24 -0700
Subject: [ietf-privacy] protocol discussion
X-BeenThere: ietf-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Privacy Discussion List <ietf-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy>, <mailto:ietf-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:34:31 -0000

Hello Everyone,

I want to talk about protocol, that has similar characteristics to otp.
Are you interessted?

Greetings
F.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email