(In reply to comment #184)
> 1) Advertising a different CA in a CA inclusion bug is probably not too nice.
Kairo, comment 182 explicitly asked for it. :-)
But my comment is certainly meant to be helpful - StartCom has been working hard to provide an viable alternatives to the Internet community.
> 2) Nobody just does "not want to accept" CAcert at Mozilla, they just need to
> undergo an audit as said here in this bug report, and they are in the process
> of doing that, it just takes more paperwork and time than anticipated, from
> what I hear.
That's complete nonsense. If it's just paperwork Mozilla wouldn't need it. As such CAcert has been promising an audit for years, but apparently it isn't that easy to satisfy this requirement.
(In reply to comment #184)
> 1) Advertising a different CA in a CA inclusion bug is probably not too nice.
Kairo, comment 182 explicitly asked for it. :-)
But my comment is certainly meant to be helpful - StartCom has been working hard to provide an viable alternatives to the Internet community.
> 2) Nobody just does "not want to accept" CAcert at Mozilla, they just need to
> undergo an audit as said here in this bug report, and they are in the process
> of doing that, it just takes more paperwork and time than anticipated, from
> what I hear.
That's complete nonsense. If it's just paperwork Mozilla wouldn't need it. As such CAcert has been promising an audit for years, but apparently it isn't that easy to satisfy this requirement.