[Peter Gutmann <[email protected]> (2011-09-02 15:02:42 UTC)]
> The only > downside is that we really need to require CAs to choose names that work > better with the -gate suffix. Something like EntrustGate I can deal with, but > there's no way I'm trying EBGElektronikSertifikaHizmetSaglayicisiGate in a > message). The -gate suffix is getting tiresome, actually. I tend to agree with this: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=5106 Ever since a certain third-rate burglary in Washington, D.C., many years ago, journalists have insisted on sticking the suffix "gate" onto every scandal that erupts. Big or little, significant or silly, real or faux – doesn't matter. It gets gated. This has been an annoying practice for years. It's knee-jerk. It's easy. It's boring. [...] - Harald _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
