On 6 Oct 2009, at 14:48, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
As explained at http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper/stampnew.htm they
moved to alt.security.pgp in 2002. But ... the latest timestamp
summary I can see there is from May 2009, so I guess the point stands,
unless it's just google groups that won
> -Original Message-
> From: pgut001 [mailto:pgut...@wintermute01.cs.auckland.ac.nz]
> On Behalf Of Peter Gutmann
> Sent: October 5, 2009 10:07 PM
> To: a...@poneyhot.org; cryptography@metzdowd.com
> Subject: Re: Trusted timestamping
>
> "Alex Pankratov&q
+ Fearghas McKay :
> http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper.htm
>
> Has been around since ~1995 and just works whenever I have used it,
> albeit some time ago. It publishes time stamp info on Usenet,
> comp.security.pgp.announce which shows the last activity was in
> 2002...
>
> http://groups.google
On 5 Oct 2009, at 16:04, Ian G wrote:
My view is that there is no demand for this as a service. The
apparent need for it is more a paper requirement that came out of
PKI world's search for a perfect product than any business need.
E.g., if you think you want it, you might be better reward
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Alex Pankratov wrote:
> Does anyone know what's the state of affairs in this area ?
>
> This is probably slightly off-topic, but I can't think of
> a better place to ask about this sort of thing.
>
> I have spent a couple of days looking around the Internet,
> and t
Alex Pankratov wrote:
Does anyone know what's the state of affairs in this area ?
This is probably slightly off-topic, but I can't think of
a better place to ask about this sort of thing.
I have spent a couple of days looking around the Internet,
and things appear to be .. erm .. hectic and di
> -Original Message-
> On Sunday, October 04, 2009 5:42 PM
> Alex Pankratov wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what's the state of affairs in this area ?
I think there are two factors. 1) This is complex problem and 2) Where
it might have really been required (i.e. the courts) it has not; the
On 04/10/2009 23:42, Alex Pankratov wrote:
I guess my main confusion at the moment is why large CAs of
Verisign's size not offering any standalone timestamping
services.
My view is that there is no demand for this as a service. The apparent
need for it is more a paper requirement that came
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:42:22 +0200 Alex Pankratov
wrote:
>There is for example timestamp.verisign.com, but there is
>no documentation or description of it whatsoever.
>From European world plagued with qualified electronic signature
disease - timestamp servers usually are compatible with RFC