-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi
On Monday 27 July 2015 at 6:55:03 AM, in <mid:55b5c7b7.4090...@enigmail.net>, n...@enigmail.net wrote: > Thus, I am happy for any feedback (details and general > remarks) both here and directly as email to me. Comments in no particular order, just as they occurred to me when looking through your paper:- If a key is validated by the proxy, then subsequently uploaded again with a new UID, does the new UID get a validation expiry date that matches the rest of the key? Or does it get a standard 12-month validation period, but still get re-validated the next time one of the other UIDs needs it, so that all UIDs' validation expiry dates are brought back into sync? And what if the upload with an extra UID hits a different validation server? If a third party has uploaded my key, or if the validation server is automatically validating existing keys in response to certain events, the validation emails are unsolicited by me. Most people will not click a link in such an email. If a third party who can intercept my emails has generated a key containing my email address in a UID, all bets are off. If an email provider provides public keys for their customers, presumably those keys are unsuitable for mail encryption because the provider may have access to the private key. The configuration changes for email clients that you mention, things like which keyserver to use and which keys to trust, need to be set in GnuPG.conf (or maybe some form of GnuPG wrapper or plugin) so that they are used by an email client that simply calls GnuPG and therefore honours GnuPG's own settings. Same for trust models; maybe you should consider suggesting a modified trust model for GnuPG that includes options for handling validation signatures. Blacklists should not be used *anywhere* as they are a form of censorship and can be used for DOS attacks. In your proposal for listing validation signatures in GnuPG: "‘!’ after sig signals successful validation" - why is this needed? Surely the mere presence of a validation signature signals successful validation. Why would the notation value be base64 encoded? What is the rationale for preventing users from reading the notation values in a key listing? Notation version numbers. Rather than using different notation names such as validation...@enigmail.net, I would think it better to keep the notation name standard and put the version number at the start of the value string. - -- Best regards MFPA <mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net> Of course it's a good idea - it's mine! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJVti9OXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRCM0FFN0VDQTlBOEM4QjMwMjZBNUEwRjU2 QjdDNzRDRUIzMUYyNUYwAAoJEGt8dM6zHyXwomYIAKOZABvgm+ThrS8fEVBss0ZC YGum47Mu1j72FAAVZWw2q/w34sOOpZmBU4SdqFYVtvy+g3+KpdBviybU3pZCjUx9 220pOHjLzyWOA1Kg4yl3N9NDRRzN70IvTf3S1jEwiJAedr4dH1Wq25SlS8vICj6r JYohh9Cp4fEBXQTA7IJVvHUE6AbVRfeN4HqyaDCfLN3Om0m37fws2J9p6w9u7CnI Pkuku+BwMMzJX2bqJo4rEQ9f777FGpyicAfj0xVEZuwfa5zZ6Uc5sWaxc9RXyjw7 zKHpwllefD3xhV7SavEjea5cmU2GpNuPDHwYB2tzMq3PR/zZxMdK8qF2tgTqpDmI vgQBFgoAZgUCVbYvU18UgAAAAAAuAChpc3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVu cGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MzNBQ0VENEVFOTEzNEVFQkRFNkE4NTA2MTcx MkJDNDYxQUY3NzhFNAAKCRAXErxGGvd45HYGAQCMDqnx5p5GssdlNRjamhGLZ722 jSiKwhEuScsRNcg2dAEA5QtVWIzazuuC8KJB9kERVyXCnoWUu9QD7Rlatzh6wAU= =0XZS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users