-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi David
On Friday 26 February 2010 at 4:33:03 PM, you wrote: > 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. This is an example of what I meant:- Somebody met me once, briefly. They showed me a genuine-looking passport that didn't look as if it had been tampered with, they looked like the photo in the passport (though, hopefully, less ill!), and the name in the passport matched the UID on the key. My signature says I believe this person has the name they claim to have. Nothing more and nothing less. I would not consider myself to be "associated" with this person, although I concede that my signature on their key associates us in the web of trust. - -- Best regards MFPA mailto:expires2...@ymail.com COMMITTEE: A body that keeps minutes and wastes hours. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBS4g/x6ipC46tDG5pAQqt8gP/VazjXsg96lC46tXhFFuVz+tBmnqO2byw VHqq8ODKOS+1grR8kzjrdYZLGfDLUYYvqshAdaM888xqJ3VarFtI/mKAm1CC0QTp jzVUQrdBZadryLPioPXmW4JTs3YnipQgUBJinJE8IRXPkM5fOPLUC5d5yj7Ubngu Y9HHA9gSjow= =Ps7x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
