> Understood, and I agree it makes no such statement. However, it does make a > reasonably good statement that you were physically located near that person > at a certain point in time, roughly what that time was, and roughly where > (geographically) it happened.
This is assuming the signature is known to not be someone attempting a credibility attack, or that the signer didn't sign it by accident while intending to sign a different key, etc., etc. I agree that once those assumptions are made you can learn an awful lot, and I agree that these assumptions are usually correct. Not too many people sign keys by accident, or do credibility attacks, etc. Maybe it's an artifact of my upbringing. I see the world as broken up into things you can prove, things you suspect, and things that might be. Signature analysis lets you know a lot of might-bes, and might be a good basis for suspicions, but without those preconditions I think it's pretty hard to prove things. I imagine we're in agreement here. I still look forward to seeing your results. :) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
