On 11/28, Paul Wouters ? wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Matt Rogers wrote:
>
> (moved discussion to swan-dev)
>
> >>The intent was that the signature made by the CAcert over the CRL was
> >>either not yet valid or expired. This is unrelated to the content of the
> >>CRL.
> >>
> >The signature bein
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Matt Rogers wrote:
(moved discussion to swan-dev)
The intent was that the signature made by the CAcert over the CRL was
either not yet valid or expired. This is unrelated to the content of the
CRL.
The signature being expired? Do you mean a scenario where the CRL is signe
