Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > A signature made with a secret key that was published on Usenet can > > > hardly be a valid proof of anything. > > > > In some countries like in France it's truly accepted in court like a > > valid proof, you just have to follow some rules. I don't think the > > France is an exception in this matter. > > > This is true in the UK as well.
What is true? As far as know, almost anything is acceptable in a UK court as valid proof, apart from a few stupid exceptions, such as "hearsay". It's obvious, however, that a signature made with a key that was accidently or deliberately published cannot in itself be evidence of anything particularly interesting. It has been argued that the term "signature" for what GPG does was badly chosed. It is more like a "seal".
