Maybe that's an opportunity to put to use "notations , and self-sign the keybase-uidusing --cert-notation.
Of course, nobody would care to check that, but would there be any other issue down this road? Kind Regards, Kostis On 25 January 2017 at 23:39, Felix Van der Jeugt < felix.vanderje...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Andrew Gallagher's message of 2017-01-25 18:10:56 +0000: > > True, people might try to email you on that ID, but the worst that > > will happen is they get a bounce (and you have other, usable IDs on > > the same pubkey I assume). > > I indeed do have those, but I'm not sure keybase will bounce. I tried > mailing myself there earlier (with a third address) and all I got in > return was silence. > > > If the ID still "belongs" to you (in some meaningful sense) then > > there's no need to revoke it just because it is unusable for the > > purposes of email. It is merely a convention that IDs correspond to > > email addresses. If your keybase account still exists, has a 1-to-1 > > mapping with that ID, and is still under your control, then IMO it's > > legitimate to keep the ID - particularly if it is used as a reference > > point for other things. The presence of an ID on a public key makes no > > claim as to whether the ID is usable for a particular purpose. > > Thanks for the opinion, I find myself agreeing. I should probably stop > collecting signs on that uid on keysigning parties, though, I shouldn't > bother people with sending signed keys an unconventional (and manual) > method. > > Sincerely, > Felix > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > >
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
