[Note: This is cross-posted. The best venue for follow-up questions is the
public mailing list at ct-pol...@chromium.org or the post at
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/ct-policy/78N3SMcqUGw/ykIwHXuqAQAJ
]
[Note: Posting wearing my Chrome hat. None of this reflects Mozilla policy,
On 24/10/16 09:33, Mathias Tausig wrote:
> Really only S/MIME signaures, or should PGP signatures be avoided, too?
I'm not aware of the problem occurring with PGP signatures, but feel
free to test in mozilla.test.
Gerv
___
dev-security-policy mailing
We have already implemented version control on Chinese version CP/CPS, which
include version number (e.g. V4.3) and effective date (e.g. 2016-08-01). The
revision and release of CP/CPS are reviewed and approved by the security policy
committee (see section 1.5 in CP/CPS).
Meanwhile, we are a
Really only S/MIME signaures, or should PGP signatures be avoided, too?
cheers
Mathias
On Fre, 2016-10-21 at 13:26 -0700, Gervase Markham wrote:
> In a development which proves that irony is not dead, I need to request
> participants in this forum to avoid S/MIME-signing their messages here
>
On 24/10/16 06:55, Samuel Pinder wrote:
> There's some good questions there, actually. OEM SSL, does that mean
> another CA would be doing the validation and issuing using their own
> infrastructure and team, which you would be reselling via a
> constrained intermediate?
I suspect he means
5 matches
Mail list logo