On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:55:17AM +0000, Daniel THOMPSON wrote: > On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 01:03 +0000, Bruce Stephens wrote: > > It seems a bit overcomplex, though; what's the rationale for wanting > > to call different keys by the same name anyway? Is it just the > > limited namespace for keys (a restricted form of email address), or is > > it just the upgrade issue? > > Assuming one works on multiple projects (e.g. monotone and coLinux) then > having separate keys with the same e-mail address does make sense to > some degree. For example if the private key for one project is > compromised then only that project needs to go to the trouble of > revoking the key (and reviewing all changes signed with that key).
Maybe, if we're talking about an ideal world. Don't do this now! You will just make yourself unhappy! As a workaround, in a lot of cases you can use + addresses. Like, I could have a key [EMAIL PROTECTED] and a key [EMAIL PROTECTED], and due to some magic built into most SMTP setups, both addresses are actually valid and will reach me. -- Nathaniel -- .i dei jitfa fanmo xatra _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
