On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:51:58 -0400, Jameson Rollins <jroll...@finestructure.net> wrote: > I think the situation Daniel points out is one of the better usages for > local signatures, and probably the main reason for having them in the > first place.
Actually, looking at the RFC 4880 now, I see that the original definition definitely was that local signatures were intended to *only* be used by the issuer. From section 5.2.3.11 [0]: Non-exportable, or "local", certifications are signatures made by a user to mark a key as valid within that user's implementation only. Thus, when an implementation prepares a user's copy of a key for transport to another user (this is the process of "exporting" the key), any local certification signatures are deleted from the key. The receiver of a transported key "imports" it, and likewise trims any local certifications. jamie. [0] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.3.11
pgpi0fadBGzqy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
