[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!

To: linux-crypto@nl.linux.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
From: David Gümbel <david.guembel@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:43:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <01080221094800.01425@dix>
Organization: -
References: <NBBBJHKIOKPKOGOEPEDPCEFCDMAA.stuart@bh90210.net> <001601c11b7f$de15ed20$440fa8c0@garbobiii> <01080221094800.01425@dix>
Sender: owner-linux-crypto@nl.linux.org

On Thursday,  2. August 2001 21:09, David Gümbel wrote:

[a lot of stuff]
> As I would guess (but don't exactly know) that MS has not taken step 2, the
> second (binary) part of the message schuld have had the
> application/octet-stream content type and have the MS-specific stuff done
> in a private header field, as stated in:

The "private header field" part of that statement is nonsense. H.Chan is 
right, of course. And please replace "schuld" with "should" in your mind :-)


Regards,



David Gümbel
-- 
"Black holes are where god is dividing by zero."

Linux-crypto:  cryptography in and on the Linux system
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/

References:
- Re: Those damn army brats!
  - From: "Michael T. Babcock" <mbabcock@fibrespeed.net>
- [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
  - From: David Gümbel <david.guembel@gmx.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Those damn army brats!
Next by Date: Re: [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
Prev by thread: [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
Next by thread: Re: [OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread