Am Sa 26.04.2014, 13:43:32 schrieb MFPA: > > Thus I would like to offer "accepted" as a possible > > alternative. I guess that shows the user decision. > > Maybe even as a combination: "authenticity accepted". > > In the case of a non-exportable signature made simply to allow me to > encrypt to a key, I am not "accepting" or "authenticating" or > "validating" or "verifying" that key. All I am doing is "activating" > it for use.
This may be a language problem (on my side) but in my understanding you do exactly that: You accept a key for usage. Whether you verify it before is your decision. And thus I prefer "accept" over "authenticate" because "authentication" is an opinion (not only in the quality you do that but also in whether you do it at all or not) but "accepting" is a simple fact. Facts are easier to handle than opinions. As more than one year has not been enough for me to write a certification policy for my new key all my certifications are local ones. I hope you don't misunderstand the feature: Local signature is not meant as "rather useless signature" but just as "not for the public". I have local certifications at cerification level 1 (your case) and 3. Hauke -- Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/unterstuetzer/ http://userbase.kde.org/Concepts/OpenPGP_Help_Spread OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
