timestamp (0x40) signatures?
wk at gnupg.org
Sun Mar 3 13:50:02 CET 2002
On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:28:11 +0100 (MET), Rick van Rein said:
> I just noticed that GnuPG is not willing to parse a timestamp signature
> that follows RFC 2440 properly. In the source I did not find it either,
> so that makes sense. Shall I make a patchit, or is there a reason not to?
Please send me such a signature so that I can write a test case. For
larger patches we need papers (> ~10 lines total), so it might be
easier if we write it.
Werner Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code GmbH et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus
More information about the Gnupg-devel