>> While I didn't see/read the ages-old thread that was mentioned before, >> you allegedly even agreed to implement something roughly equivalent in >> the past. > > Did I? I only recall that once I changed the generation code to make > sure the timestamp of the self-signatures, the primary key and the > subkeys are all the same.
As I said, I didn't read the thread. How about the use cases I presented? Any problems with those? -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@jeromebaum.com web www.jeromebaum.com -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA -- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
