On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:26:31PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote: > David Shaw wrote: > > >>>Some people > >>>will not sign such a user ID though, > > > > It's not an issue of improving the trust, it's an issue of > > disambiguation. > > Right, so why is it any better to have a key with: > 0x99242560 David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > than to have > 0x99242560 David Shaw > 0x99242560 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (two UIDs) > > You still have the same level of disambiguation. Why would someone be > unwilling to sign the one, but willing to sign the other?
Because they're not joined together it is not a real disambiguation. With two UIDs, it is possible for someone to remove one without affecting the other. We've established that people are sometimes unwilling to sign "David Shaw" (with no email). Having two UIDs, each requiring their own signature, is much the same case since the email address UID can be removed. > But it's really irrelevant to the original point, which is that in many > cases, the real name doesn't matter; only the email address/key does. > "If I know a person only by email, then that email *is* the person to > me." In that case, if the email is trusted, then the name on the UID is > irrelevant. I might be willing to trust that key ID 0x99242560 really > is used by the holder of email [EMAIL PROTECTED], but not that the > person in question really is named David Shaw. ... and in most cases, I > probably don't really care about the real name of the keyholder, only > about the email address. So why should I have to sign both in order to > declare this trust? You don't. But it's not up to you as the signer - it's up to the key holder to say how he wants to be known. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
