-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Hi On Tuesday 22 April 2014 at 11:38:36 PM, in <mid:5356ef6c.30...@fifthhorseman.net>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Did you see my two proposals at the end > of my note about ways it could be improved if anyone > has time and effort to put into it? the "same owner if > both assert the same user ID" fix might be the > least-fiddly one, which would catch a large fraction of > the cases in question. Would it be feasible to have a signature notation for use when signing other keys you own, that could potentially be parsed by GnuPG? It would have to be reciprocal to prevent abuse. Say a user has two keys, 0x0123456789abcdef and 0xfedcba9876543210. I propose each key could sign the other with a signature notation something like:- siblings-0x0123456789abcdef-0xfedcba9876543...@example.org. If there were more than two keys it could be extended, or maybe each pair would have to cross-sign. When GnuPG encountered "siblings" from the same set that had cross-signatures with this notation, the "family" could be counted only once in trust calculations. -- Best regards MFPA mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net Did you hear? They took the word gullible out of the dictionary -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iPQEAQEKAF4FAlNYFV5XFIAAAAAALgAgaXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3Bl bnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEJBMjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0 N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5pqfUEAIrOAus4esvo6/Jo3XGZEQPDAZEPxHQYn3K3 s9uf6WACvJP3Uheql5A3E3PK26R6W55xXZ88hC5bcDChuUC2sApujrE0Rkm8NNsi mwjn4tPpuYTJviGZelbwkghh/6O6AEbRjIoS6fH9daFC6b/FFvAAQ3ILfVaf7ajS YP5vqY3F =Jr/G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
