-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi
On Tuesday 16 March 2010 at 6:02:15 AM, in <mid:4b9f1ee7.9000...@gmail.com>, Paul Richard Ramer wrote: > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:49:32 +0000 MFPA wrote: >> I don't understand the comment that they were never >> private information. They will have been private >> information from their inception up until the time you >> publicised them or published them. > I meant that at the time that I decided to include them > into my key's UIDs, I had already shared those e-mail > addresses a lot. I see what you mean, but I would still consider them to be private information. I have a record of numerous people's email addresses and phone numbers but each is a piece of private information appertaining to the person it can be used to contact. > Given the current system, I think that it would be good > to educate new adopters that an e-mail address in the > UID is optional. So do I. >> That doesn't only apply to anonymous entities. For >> example, is today's John Smith the same John Smith I >> communicated with last week? > Well, unless you have a way to prove who John Smith is, > he is about as anonymous as a pseudonymous entity. That's what I meant: the fact of it being his real name rather than a pseudonym makes no difference. > Understood. I think that "private dissemination within > a public venue" is a better description than "upload > publicly and download privately". It also has the feel of quite a catchy slogan. (-; >> Indeed. The UID hashing idea, that I read about during >> the life of this thread, would be an additional option >> to accommodate an increased range of privacy goals. >> Possibly that particular niche is too marginal to be >> worth implementing, but it shouldn't be dismissed >> without consideration. > Because that niche might be to marginal, I recommended > that making a working keyserver with those features > would be the way to go. Then, if the usage is high > enough, get the other keyservers to implement it. > If you (or someone else who is interested) have the > right skills, you could download the SKS keyserver code > that is located at > http://sks-keyserver.googlecode.com/files/sks-1.1.1.tgz > and begin hacking it. Then after you have created > working code, you could try to get it integrated into > the existing codebase. That obviously makes sense. - -- Best regards MFPA mailto:expires2...@ymail.com Put knot yore trust inn spel chequers -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBS59cfKipC46tDG5pAQpVbgP+JCkJpwt0cNSInmRB4mB+egOsUfN9WaIy wEvnYTia+IeuWuPx7FMcYARVH+UCitOsvcnHmjg7pYvGcjnXiFqGzlSVL4J4rIgk 3BjpEbRn6hNc5lnFSYGATkjIUP+Xii7E173z/qBWA/zl4m5ngWnhKMoyhA0Yr+LC vuxcjrJL/c8= =YhGS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
