also sprach Neal H. Walfield <n...@walfield.org> [2017-06-22 16:15 +0200]: > I didn't say that it is not possible to have a better algorithm. It > is possible. But, it is not as easy as you suggest (and what you > suggest doesn't sound trivial). > > For instance, adding or updating a key doesn't necessarily result in > equal or more trust. An update could cause a key to be revoked. In > that case, if 0xdeadbeef is marginally trusted, we now need to > identify keys that were considered valid because of 0xdeadbeef, but no > longer are.
This would be handled upon use of such keys. In fact, rather than updating the trustdb on update of key material, wouldn't it make much more sense to compute the information just-in-time? Provided we'd have a data format allowing for fast access like this? -- @martinkrafft | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "the scientific paper in its orthodox form does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a travesty, of the nature of scientific thought." -- sir peter medawar spamtraps: madduck.bo...@madduck.net
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
