On 26 May 2006, Florian Weimer outgrape:
> * Manoj Srivastava:
>
>> I will not be signing his keys, ever, based on this action of what
>> I consider to be bad faith. Based on discussion with other people
>> who seem to find this action amusing, but not unacceptable, I find
>> that my decision to vaive my personal requirements of two forms of
>> ID was probably a mistake, and I am probably not going to be
>> signing any of the keys.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage people to mark the signers
> of Martin's key as non-trustworthy in their personal web of trust,
> at least if the signatures were created in a specific time frame?
> Signing a key does not express a trust relationship, only a vague
> promise that you have checked that the user ID and the owner match.
> The trustworthiness is an individual decision and has to be set by
> each GnuPG user individually.
Ha!. So the 10% who did check the supposed "real" ID would be
also penalized? I guess that would be par for the course.
manoj
--
And I alone am returned to wag the tail.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
