On 2013-02-07 17:25, David Shaw wrote: > Nope, this could be done. There are a few reasons it hasn't, > including that it would make the trust model incompatible (in the > sense that a path that exists using GnuPG might not exist in PGP and > vice versa) with other implementations. > > There is no reason why someone couldn't write an *additional* trust > model that takes that into account, though. It just takes someone > who wants it badly enough. The OpenPGP standard doesn't have much to > say about different trust models - it's mostly left up to the > implementations to decide how to resolve whether a key is considered > usable or not.
Ok, I'll put "write another trust model" on my todo-list. But not under the "I need this badly" section. Rather under "If I have nothing more useful to do". Over the past few days' I've been thinking about it, and it seems to be a very complex problem. Mostly because the quantitiy involved (trust) is not very well defined (which I consider a feature in general, but a bug in this particular context). _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
