MFPA: > > > On Friday 2 December 2016 at 1:46:00 PM, in > <mid:96a4d163-02fb-096e-a75e-980f0ee61...@mailbox.org>, Stephan Beck > wrote:- > > > >> gpg's signature timestamp (on a given file) would NOT >> be a real proof of >> a document being allegedly signed at that specific >> date or (prior to a >> determined date). > > > Maybe use a digital timestamping service, such as > <http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper/stampinf.htm>? > > Or publish an encrypted (or not) copy in the small ads of a newspaper. > > > Yes, that's it, publish it in the papers. Everyone would agree on that this would be a "real" proof, i.e. one that would be accepted in the courtroom. Luckily, communicating (as via email, as among humans) you do not always need to have that degree of certainty. :-)
Cheers Stephan
0x4218732B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
