[cryptography] Bonding or Insuring of CAs?
natanael.l at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 21:35:24 EST 2013
Well, are there more people here who want a more strict crypto only list
than those who want a more "generic" one? Would we set stricter rules here,
or would there have to be a split? If there would be a split, are there
enough of those who want a stricter list to start a new list and keep it
I would personally not mind a more strict list, but I would find it a bit
boring if nothing but cryptography would be discussed. There's a lot of
interesting consequences from cryptography, and if the only ones we could
discuss here would be what the algorithms and protols themselves does, I
personally don't think as many people would be interested in the
discussions. But then I don't have any data on that, and I don't know how
many or what kind of responses you got.
2013/1/26 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Natanael <natanael.l at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If somebody wants there to be a pure cryptography mailing list and
> separate more generic one (like this one currently is), I think that person
> would have to try starting a more strict crypto mailing list, because I
> don't think most people here would want the rules here to get stricter or
> that they would want to switch to a different list that would be just like
> this one is now.
> The off-list responses to my message would disagree with you.
> > We also don't want too many different lists.
> Some of "we" do. My question was to tease this out a bit.
> I'm happy to shut up about it if I'm in the minority, but the question
> that started this thread was a perfect example of something that is about
> security (actually, security operations), not cryptography, and yet gets
> brought up on this list more and more.
> --Paul Hoffman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cryptography