On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:25:32PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > > The sig. of 1-Jan-2000 is valid and usable. It can only be ignored when > > superceded. > > I agree with your general idea here, but not the details, exactly. > What GnuPG does in this case is to take the 1-Jan-2000 signature and > ignore any that follow.
As I said, that makes them decidedly non-modifiable instead of simply non-revocable. > I don't like the idea of a signature that is temporarily superceded. > Either it is superceded (and can be removed) or it is not. It's a bit If one doesn't insist that the latest non-revocable, superceded sigs are to be removed, I don't see the problem with temporarily superceded sigs. However, GPG's current behavior can be circumvented by manually removing any non-revocable sigs that block other sigs from being considered, anyone affected by this behavior should be able to diagnose it quickly, and I don't recall seeing a lot of non-revocable 0x10-0x13 sigs, so this probably won't become a big issue anytime soon. BTW, what has your testing of other (OpenPGP(?)) encryption programs uncovered? -- Jason Harris | NIC: JH329, PGP: This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] _|_ web: http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ Got photons? (TM), (C) 2004
pgpUWI6gnhXj3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
