On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 2/26/10 9:49 AM, MFPA wrote: >> I thought signing somebody's key was just stating to the world that >> you believe the claimed identity of the person who controls that key >> at the time you are signing it - not an indication that you are in any >> way "associated." > > I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out how you can reasonably > affirm the claimed identity of the person who controls the key if you > are in no way associated with them.
There is associated and then there is associated. I suspect MFPA is using the term in the "met casually, perhaps at a keysigning event" sense, and not in the "friends with", or "partners in crime with" sense. Both are associated. The latter two are (forgive me) more associated. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
