IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS

pgut001@cs.aucKland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Wed, 10 March 1999 05:27 UTC

Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA28969 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 00:27:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id UAA10423 for ietf-smime-bks; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (mail.student.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.101]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA10418 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 20:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz (pgut001@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.36.9]) by mail.student.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with SMTP id RAA14290; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:35:07 +1300 (NZDT) (sender pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz)
Received: by cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz (relaymail v0.9) id <92104050600771>; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:35:06 (NZDT)
From: pgut001@cs.aucKland.ac.nz
To: housley@spyrus.com
Subject: Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Reply-To: pgut001@cs.aucKland.ac.nz
X-Charge-To: pgut001
X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:35:06 -0000
Message-ID: <92104050600771@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

 
>I stayed silent to see if anyone would support your suggestion.  No one spoke
>for it, but no one spke against it either.  I would like to heard from the
>list members regarding this suggestion.  I do not consider silence a reason to
>make an additional recipient type....
 
The maxim of the law is that silence gives consent.  Obviously everyone agrees
with me :-).
 
Peter.
 
>I stayed silent to see if anyone would support your suggestion.  No one spoke
>for it, but no one spke against it either.  I would like to heard from the
>list members regarding this suggestion.  I do not consider silence a reason to
>make an additional recipient type....
 
The maxim of the law is that silence gives consent.  Obviously everyone agrees
with me :-).
 
Peter.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status