ecated.
Then it would be: "SSK@" + publicKey + "/path" [ + "//subpath" ]
-Original Message-
From: Edgar Friendly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Nov 4, 2003 11:56 AM
To: Discussion of development issues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev]
Edgar Friendly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Please *don't* do that - it's an incredibly useful function.
> > Without it, clients have to insert a dummy SSK at htl=0 to convert
> > private keys into public ones.
> >
> Clients *shouldn't* be converting
David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please *don't* do that - it's an incredibly useful function.
> Without it, clients have to insert a dummy SSK at htl=0 to convert
> private keys into public ones.
>
Clients *shouldn't* be converting private keys into public ones. The
reason being that th
On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 19:04, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Checking, it _is_ in the FCP spec on the website. I
> should probably put the 'dangerous' flag in the spec to discourage
> people from using it.
Please *don't* do that - it's an incredibly useful function.
Without it, clients have to insert a d
David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> In a desperate fit of RTFS-ing, I came across the FCP 'InvertPrivateKey'
> command. Very handy.
>
> But, it was 'red-flagged' in the comments, indicating its existence
> might not be dependable.
>
> Can I count on this command staying in the fred
Hi
In a desperate fit of RTFS-ing, I came across the FCP 'InvertPrivateKey'
command. Very handy.
But, it was 'red-flagged' in the comments, indicating its existence
might not be dependable.
Can I count on this command staying in the fred FCP implementation?
--
Cheers
David
___
