Re: ITP seahorse

On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 09:29:39PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > But putting it in non-US/main would be equally legal: it only depends > > on packages in main and non-US/main. Policy dates back to a time when > > non-US was not split, and I would like to argue that putting it in > > non-US/main ma

Re: ITP seahorse

On Thu, 18 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > The program is not encumbered by encryption laws, so it doesn't need to go > > into non-US. Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs providing the necessary hooks to insert encryption software to be restricted too. Simon -- P

Re: ITP seahorse

On Fri, May 19, 2000 at 03:22:19AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > Are you sure about that? I remember something about programs providing > the necessary hooks to insert encryption software to be restricted > too. I, too, have heard about this. But I think it is something that people have said, rat

Re: Crypto and US - the time is nigh

> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben> On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:45:46PM -0400, Richard A Nelson Ben> wrote: >> I just realized that the sendmail update I made this weekend >> 8.11.0.Beta1 should probably be removed from its home in >> US/Extra/Mail becaus