Re: Updates prior to the release of cryptlib 3.3.4/3.4.0
Peter Gutmann <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.cryptlib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tomas Gustavsson <[email protected]> writes: >Sorry for intruding, but is it not considered a very bad idea to have >technology specific legislation? Yes. It's also considered bad form to have unenforceable laws and other things, but they get passed all the time anyway :-). X.509 has been a particular problem ever since Utah's "Law of X.509" in 1995, luckily the remnants of this idea only seem to persist in some European countries where a few local vendors meet the necessary silly-walk requirements and everyone else can ignore them (see for example the list of SigG vendors that Peter linked to, it's the usual suspects who'll line up at the trough of government funding, Deutsche Telekom, Deutsche Bank, T-Online, that sort of thing, and you may as well not bother trying to play in that game). Peter. _______________________________________________ Cryptlib mailing list [email protected] via Mail: [email protected] Archive: ftp://ftp.franken.de/pub/crypt/cryptlib/archives/ http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.cryptlib Posts from non-subscribed addresses are blocked to prevent spam, please subscribe in order to post messages.