On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:20:18AM -0800, snowcrash+gnupg-users wrote: > > YES, this would do it; > > ok. thanks. > > > however, proper etiquette would be to *not* send > > B's Key to the Servers, but rather to returned it 'Signed' to B and let > > B make any 'publication' decisions/actions. > > understood. > > > There are folks who are > > _very_ picky about their Keys being in General Circulation! > > that said, is there any reason NOT to (or, any advantage to ...): > > *l*sign "B" with "A", and, therefore, NOT distribute "A" to the > keyservers &/or via export -- and, instead, reference the "A" > trust-ing-pubkey @ a web page?
No, there is no point in doing this as the main point of signing a key is so that GnuPG (or PGP) can use the signature in its trust calculations to decide if a given key is valid or not. If you post your signature values on a web page somewhere (presumably in a human language), GnuPG can't read it and understand it, and so that information is not usable. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
