Mike Acker wrote: > I really liked the idea of having the Membership Secretary sign a Public > Keyring for the Group Members and then to circulate that keyring to the > membership.
That's just super-neato great, but what does it have to do with the message thread you replied to dealing with 4096-bit keys? Oh right, not a damned thing. If you wish to start a new thread, then post a new message to the list. DO NOT just reply to an existing thread and change the subject -- that is known politely as "hijacking a thread." Also, please do not add people to a post if they have no prior involvement. You changed the subject, you also started with an empty slate of people interested in it. > > How to implement though, as members will need an additional keyring for > each group they have a membership with. > > Ideally the keyring would be used in place of an address book and > associated with an e/mail account. this thinking is based on the idea > that a Secure Group would expect its members to have a dedicated e/mail > account reserved for the use only by the members of the secure group. > > i'll have to try some poking around and run some tests. I don't see > making VM a requirement as a workable solution.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
