On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
> time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
> Govt request.
>
> Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
>
>
Actually, as far as I
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> Phill,
>
> On 09/24/2013 05:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
> > time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at
> US
> > Govt reques
Phill,
On 09/24/2013 05:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
> time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
> Govt request.
>
> Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
>
> This is still in use
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
+1000.
We should do this because nobody new is going to use it.
The other reasons you mentioned are just icing.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
pgpYSfDNjZbDG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Looking at the extreme breach of trust by US govt re PRISM, I think it is
time to do something we should have done decades ago but were stopped at US
Govt request.
Lets kill all support for X.400 mail.
This is still in use, I know. But looking through the PKIX spec the schema
is ten pages long. I