On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:21, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said: > OK but GnuPG is an infrastructure tool and not so much about personal > preferences, isn't it? ;-) So the relevant questions should be:
I believe it is. However, I maintain GnuPG as a pro-bono service for more than a decade now and thus it matters whether I have a personal interest in a feature. > This notation is a more compatible alternative to the signature type 0x40. So > its explanation could be used: > > "Timestamp signature. This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp > contained in it." That is a bit too terse. What is a timestamp how is it formatted in the message and what does such a signature actually mean. Oh, I see: We are back to that long thread and to the reason why the rfc1991 defined timestamp signature class has nevver been used in reality. > I would add for clarity: "The signer makes no statement about the signed data > (including that he has read it or at least could read it at all) except that > it existed at the time given in the signature timestamp." Well, so write that into the signed data or the signature meta data and you are done. We have a policy flag for that. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
