Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I said, I don't expect every one of these options to exist for
> everyone; just that there are many different options beyond personally
> owning a scanner, and I believe for the majority of people, at least one
> should be viable. And honestly
As I said, I don't expect every one of these options to exist for
everyone; just that there are many different options beyond personally
owning a scanner, and I believe for the majority of people, at least one
should be viable. And honestly, I don't see why mailing a photograph (the
simp
On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 09:41:39AM +0200, "Jürgen A. Erhard" wrote:
> Name just *one* task in Debian that requires a maintainer to use a
> scanner. Just one. Apart from joining, that is.
Maintaining sane? Okay, maybe not strictly necessary, but it probably
helps a whole *hell* of a lot. :)
B
> "Chris" == Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote:
>> So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have
>> had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a
>> comment on the arrogance
> "Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> Dale Scheetz writes:
>> > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be
>> > required by the task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be
>> > a reasonable
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Fri, 4 Aug 2000 22:29:12 +0200",
with "Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the
new maintainer process)",
"Oliver M . Bolzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2000
At 11:09 PM 08/04/2000 +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
>And as a side note, I've heard that people were able to do stuff for
>the GNU project without depositing urine samples, but then again the
>GNU project is probably not as respectable as Debian.
Urine, blood, sweat or tears... almost any bodily f
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint
> or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangles over my
> actual driver's license number and social security number. This was
> regarde
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote...
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint
> or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangle
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote:
> So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have
> had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a
> comment on the arrogance of the assumption that one who does not have
> convienent access to the latest techno
Hi,
I am nearly sorry to lengthen this thread, but I stumbled about an
assumption that I believe is fundamental and _not_ true:
The keyboard of Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think some sort of traceability is good. As debian maintainers, we
> can upload packages. If I am malici
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> So far, to my knowledge, not one applicant has refused to supply such
> information. If one such example exists, I would argue that this clause
> should, in fact, be executed, rejecting such applications, simply because
> there are s
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> require of incoming members. Isn't it?
>
>
>
No.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Ziegler
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:28:28PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> Because of the large numbers of applicants that we have to process every
> day, just to stay ahead of the incomming flood, we should be looking for
> ways to make rejection of an applicant easier, not harder. We can't
> possibly ta
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> For me, it would be harder to provide a recent photo, that it would be to
> provide a copy of my passport, so I appologize if I'm a bit incredulous
> about the difficulties of providing "ade
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling
> to show us their face?
>
> Obvoiusly I don't think so ;-)
>
Send me a scanner and I'll send you a picture. Or send me
the money to buy one.
--
[E
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
>
> You've not been reading my emails then. I do
Jim Westveer writes:
>
> On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Dale Scheetz writes:
> >
> > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement
> > except
> > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of
> > me,
> >
> > You've not bee
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
>
> You've not been reading my emails then. I do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Folks,
I have been reading this thread for far too long
Point and counter-point; Feignt and thrust; Whine and counter-whine
I just recently exited the NM que. I had to jump through all the hoops.
And you know what? I agreed with every one
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 04:47:31PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Why do you continue to confuse the issue by bringing in the onerous task
> > furphy? It is all about trust.
> Well, I agree that I trust a keysigner, and that trust allows me to accept
> the
On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
>
> You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random people
> ha
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
>
> You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random peop
Dale Scheetz writes:
> I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
> that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random people
having a copy of my passport digitised (worse still,
Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz writes:
> > >
> > > > ...Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> > > > require of incoming members. Isn't it?
> > >
> > > No.
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >
> > > Dale Scheetz writes:
> > >
> > > > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> > > > task at hand? Sca
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:55:43 +1000",
Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Extrapolations:
>
> 1. the new-maintainer process does not trust existing developers;
> having your key signed by an existing developer counts for nothing
"counts for nothing" seems t
Dale Scheetz writes:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get
> > hold of a scanner?
>
> Why should we require them to have access to a computer?
Oh come on, be reasonable. That's a non sequitur, and you know
it. T
Dale wrote:
> Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the
> > person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw
> > good ID, and that if I get mail signed/encrypted with that key that it
> > comes from that person.
> >
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> This just doesn't seem to be the onerous task that several have made it
> out to be. It's just another requirement for becoming a member. Why not
> just obliterate all the requirements, and make signing up sufficient to
> membership?
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:14:51PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
> > > bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
> > > office about providing
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
> > Dale Scheetz writes:
> >
> > > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> > > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> >
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the
> > person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw
> > good ID, and that if I get mail signed/en
> "Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dale> [...] I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
Dale> have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it
Dale> declares a lack of "connectedness" with the "technological"
Dale> society they wish to
> "Gopal" == Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gopal> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>> > Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
>> > bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
>> > office
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> The scanned ID step is a prominent example of such a "test" of
> determinedness (and nothing more) because I think everybody agrees
> that the scanned ID does _not_ improve the trace-ability of applicants
> in the case where a Debian
Hi,
this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to
comment on.
Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project,
resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups
the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_
oversimplification
Hi,
this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to
comment on.
Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project,
resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups
the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_
oversimplification
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> This photo isn't about a "web of trust". That requirement is satisfied by
> the key. The photo is about being able to identify our membership. As your
> key fingerprint is not required to be barcoded onto your hand, the image
> of
> Previously William Ono wrote:
> > This point comes up over and over, and every time someone has to point
> > out that alternative methods of getting the photograph digitized are
> > available. Whenever this issue comes up with one of my applicants, I
> > offer to accept hardcopy by snail-mail an
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> > require of incoming members. Isn't it?
>
> No. Why should being a debian
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
>
> I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here,
> since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited)
> knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text
> below because it see
Previously William Ono wrote:
> This point comes up over and over, and every time someone has to point
> out that alternative methods of getting the photograph digitized are
> available. Whenever this issue comes up with one of my applicants, I
> offer to accept hardcopy by snail-mail and scan it
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> It just occured to my that effectively, both privileges are not granted to
> Debian members only. We have sponsors who upload packages contributed by
> non-members. Although those can't upload themselves, it is prettym uch the
> same. And we all know
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:49:42PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> It just occured to my that effectively, both privileges are not granted to
> Debian members only. We have sponsors who upload packages contributed by
> non-members. Although those can't upload themselves, it is prettym uch the
> s
(I have subscribed this list, so cc to me is not needed)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:49:42 +0200,
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes th
Dale Scheetz writes:
I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here,
since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited)
knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text
below because it seems to me to be the most succinct form of his
argument.
> The gain is that he presents his face to the group, in a form that we can
> archive for "our" records, saying, "yes, we have seen this guy". This gain
> is to the group as well as to the applicant. There is nothing to be gained
> at this point (and much to put at risk) by presenting a false
Dale Scheetz writes:
> It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the
> task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to
> require of incoming members. Isn't it?
No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get
hold of a scanne
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:28:28PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> The people who signed keys said themselves that they could not with any
> sureness identify someone who's key they signed once, long ago. We
> realized, after some debate, that the fact that the developer in question
> _did_ see a pas
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
Am I the only one who has constant trouble getting the Debian listserver
to acknowledge my requests? In the past I've been ignored when trying
to subscribe and unsubscribe from various list
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> It depends on what sort of stuff you do. Unless you actually want to
> scan in images there's no reason to have a scanner. Computers, net
> connections - these things we can expect people to have access to.
> Scanners just aren't so g
Anand Kumria wrote:
>I don't know when you asked Dale but the procedures are quite clear that
>"An image file of an appropriate piece of photo-identification" (from
>http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2> is required.
Yes! We want (as a group) to see the id. The fact that a developer
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 09:09:39PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by
> all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to
> Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute,
> directl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>Hello,
>
>A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by
>all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to
>Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute,
>directly
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:43:12AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
> > bureaucratic steps, so be it. You don't haggle with your passport
> > office about providing your passport photos, do you? If you need to
>
> Actually I do -- but t
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:53:36PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> >> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -04
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
>> >> Membership is a privilege,
>> >
>> >The priv
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes that being part
> of Debian is a "privilege" that needs to be protected by people who
> probably want to abuse it.[1] The only privileges you have as a Debian
> maintainer
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> >> Membership is a privilege,
> >
> >The privilege to work, or what?
> >
> IMO the privilege to be trusted
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
>> Membership is a privilege,
>
>The privilege to work, or what?
>
IMO the privilege to be trusted to contribute to Debian, represent it well
and to adhere to the social co
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 06:38:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to
> > trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of
> > aspiring Debian d
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> Membership is a privilege,
The privilege to work, or what?
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
> > > have access to scanners, etc.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to
> trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of
> aspiring Debian developers.
Trusting developers doesn't seem to be an issue at all. N
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > [Re
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed:
> } On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> } > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
> } > technical argument
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> If you absolutely can't get hold of a scanner, take a (analog) photo
> of your ID, have it developed in any number of online places or your
> next-door photo shop, that would give you a CDROM with all your
> photos.. Sheesh.
Sure
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
> > > the signature on their key) coupled
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
> > have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a
> > lack of "connectedness" with
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
I've just dropped it this time.
> I don't own a scanner. I know several friends who do, and under extreeme
That depends on who you know and wh
On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find the technical argument (the applicant does not
> have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a
> lack of "connectedness" with the "technological" society they wish to
> enter.
While I'm not arguing
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
>
> > about the difficulties of
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> Wouldn't libraries and other such places usually have scanners for public
> access (or maybe, if they're clueless or harassed libraries, free access
Not round here. Printers probably would, though they might not be
enthused a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed:
} On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
} > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
} > technical argument (the applicant does not have access to scanners,
} > etc...) to be as wea
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Jens Müller wrote:
> Please choose ONE debian-* list!
>
Sorry but there isn't ONE debian-* list!
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here.
>
> think you missing, or overlooking three very important things.
>
> > Every applicant must provide an image file of a phot
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list]
> about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the
> tec
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
> > the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the
> > applicant closes the eye/hand l
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling
> to show us their face?
gpg -kvv espy |grep -v Klecker
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Anand Kumria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dale Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please choose ONE debian-* list!
Jens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here.
think you missing, or overlooking three very important things.
> Every applicant must provide an image file of a photograph of themselves,
> most desired is a passport or
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from
> the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the
> applicant closes the eye/hand loop. Neither is sufficient without the
> other.
B
I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here.
Every applicant must provide an image file of a photograph of themselves,
most desired is a passport or a photo ID, signed with their GPG key, in
order to identify themselves to the group. This image is archived by the
DAM as the record
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
Well indeed, but I'd expect to get a gpg-signed mail from my applicant
as part of step 2, and I could then check the signature.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Em
On 30-Jul-2000 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Hi Jim!
>
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
>> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
>> that I do infact, possess that private key.
>
> IIRC, it was required that you sign your application with the
> key. I don't know whe
Hi Jim!
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
IIRC, it was required that you sign your application with the
key. I don't know wheter this is still true however.
Previously Jim Westveer wrote:
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
Signing an arbitrary something proves that just as well. For example
a package, the output of fortune, etc.
Wichert.
--
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:18:33AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
> It seems that something is left out of the proposal to not
> require an ID (or anything else) signed by the applicant.
>
> As an example, I could acquire from db.d.o a public key for
> someone that is signed by a maintainer. (key
I am, admitadly a crypto mental midget, So feel free to
blast me if I am way off base.
It seems that something is left out of the proposal to not
require an ID (or anything else) signed by the applicant.
As an example, I could acquire from db.d.o a public key for
someone that is signed by a
90 matches
Mail list logo
