* Kurt Fitzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-09 19:58 -0600]:
> Junk signatures because the form they are being distributed in is
> meaningless. Signatures that expire in two weeks in a system which is
> evaluated every six months are useful for exactly what, mway I ask?
You may remove a key at an
David Shaw wrote:
>> Also, these are not "junk" signatures. They have semantic meaning,
>> and are used by many people. Please clarify what makes a signature a
>> "junk" signature. I'd like to understand why you classify them that
>> way.
Put it the other way round - what useful purpose do t
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:29 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
>
> > Interestingly there is a difference, whether I use '--import' to get
> > a key from a 'key.asc' or '--recv-key' to import it from a
> > keyserver. It reproducibly asks for two
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:46 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> Unfortunately not, because without the signing key, gpg can't tell if
> a signature is valid or not. If there is no way to tell if a
> signature is valid then the wrong thing might happen in cleaning.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> signature 1 fro
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 02:21:24PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> I hope, this will help you and that maybe somebody else can reproduce
> it.
Aha! I found the problem. It's actually a bug in the German
translation. I was testing in English, so never saw it. I'll file a
bug for that. Thanks f
> I have
> friends who currently don't want to use PGP because they fear that their
> keys will be uploaded to a keyserver, and then they will be spammed
> forever more.
Hi,
I totally agree what friends of Alphax say.
Wouldn't it be cute to have a sepcial option to flag both keys and
subkeys as
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:34:53PM +0200, MUS1876 wrote:
> > I have
> > friends who currently don't want to use PGP because they fear that their
> > keys will be uploaded to a keyserver, and then they will be spammed
> > forever more.
>
> Hi,
>
> I totally agree what friends of Alphax say.
>
> W
Bob Henson wrote:
Put it the other way round - what useful purpose do they serve? I haven't
seen one yet, ergo they are junk.
Um, until you actually get appointed ruler of the universe, you don't get to
make that decision for everyone else. :) Seriously though, I interact with a
lot of peopl
> I have
> friends who currently don't want to use PGP because they fear that their
> keys will be uploaded to a keyserver, and then they will be spammed
> forever more.
Hi,
I totally agree what friends of Alphax say.
Wouldn't it be cute to have a sepcial option to flag both keys and
subkeys as
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
> is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>
> Are they a good/bad signer?
> Does something need to be done about them?
> Should they be ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I've tried over the past week to send encrypted e-mails to a
>friend with a Hushmail address from Kmail on SuSE 9.3 . I've got
his >key on my keyring and when I hit the 'send' button, it brings
up the >gpg window showing the key I'm using and all th
Pawel Shajdo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
>
>>Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
>>is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>>
>>Are they a good/bad signer?
>>Does something need to be done about
Pawel Shajdo wrote:
>
> I think this is public more keyservers design problem than GD. Keyserver
> should accept new signatures only from key owner.
>
Hm, maybe to define a "key upload format" which must be signed with the
uploaded key itself (analogon of PKCS#10)? Of course, the public key
itse
13 matches
Mail list logo
