timestamp notation @gnupg.org

Hauke Laging mailinglisten at hauke-laging.de
Sat Jun 18 00:21:12 CEST 2011

Am Freitag, 17. Juni 2011, 23:23:34 schrieb MFPA:
> Hi
> On Thursday 16 June 2011 at 3:27:12 PM, in
> <mid:201106161627.13391.mailinglisten at hauke-laging.de>, Hauke Laging
> wrote:
> > If anyone is not happy with the OpenPGP timestamp
> > format (which I haven't noticed yet)
> Then I refer you to two postings from Amano Corunga
> Message-id <20110608153652.4F1508C074 at nym.dizum.nl> and
> Message-id <20110616002944.974948C0D8 at nym.dizum.nl>
> which refer to a requirement to be able to create signatures without
> revealing (possibly sensitive) information about the signer's time
> management.

To me that is quite clear not a problem of the FORMAT of the timestamp.

PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110618/9ec9ba68/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list