On 2020-08-04 at 16:46 +0200, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Yes, privacy. But that is just a welcome side-effect. What we need is
> that the domain is authenticated so that we can consider the key to be
> valid at a certain level. I see no way how you can do this via an
> anonymizer becau
Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:38, Dmitry Alexandrov said:
>> I dunno why @w...@gnupg.org did that
>
> I have a post-it on my CA laptop to add a signing subkey to my new key, I
> should really do that soon.
Maybe, you would like to update an expired key in DNS as wel
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 15:01, Phil Pennock said:
> My understanding is that for .onion hostname services they already have
> security equivalent to TLS providing privacy in their direct links onto
Yes, privacy. But that is just a welcome side-effect. What we need is
that the domain is authenticate
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 07:38, Dmitry Alexandrov said:
> I dunno why @w...@gnupg.org did that, but whatever his reasons were, the
> fact that he was _able_ to do that, is exactly the key reason why
I have a post-it on my CA laptop to add a signing subkey to my new key,
I should really do that soon.
