> 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

Reply via email to