On 30-Jul-2000 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Hi Jim!
>
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
>> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
>> that I do infact, possess that private key.
>
> IIRC, it was required that you sign your application with the
> key. I don't know whe
Hi Jim!
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
IIRC, it was required that you sign your application with the
key. I don't know wheter this is still true however.
Previously Jim Westveer wrote:
> However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated
> that I do infact, possess that private key.
Signing an arbitrary something proves that just as well. For example
a package, the output of fortune, etc.
Wichert.
--
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 11:18:33AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
> It seems that something is left out of the proposal to not
> require an ID (or anything else) signed by the applicant.
>
> As an example, I could acquire from db.d.o a public key for
> someone that is signed by a maintainer. (key
I am, admitadly a crypto mental midget, So feel free to
blast me if I am way off base.
It seems that something is left out of the proposal to not
require an ID (or anything else) signed by the applicant.
As an example, I could acquire from db.d.o a public key for
someone that is signed by a
Hi.
Since the new list debian-newmaint-discuss was created (Thanks list-admins!)
I think this topic should be moved on to there. For members in the NM team
who has not subscribed the new list, I sent the copy of this mail to the old
nm-admin list.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Mon, 31 Jul 2000 0
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still
> > submit a photographic ID of themselves.
>
> This is not true as far as I know.
Well two developers have already pointed ou
Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still
> > > submit a photographic ID of themselves.
> >
> > This is not true as far as I know.
>
> I had my key signed by two develope
Previously Anand Kumria wrote:
> Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still
> submit a photographic ID of themselves.
This is not true as far as I know.
Wichert.
--
_
/ Generally uninteresting signature
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Neither the remainder of the old new maintainer team (Joey), nor
> Wichert seemed to really want a discussion of this.
As I remember it we did have a discussion of this but at some point
I concluded we have different points of view neither of us wanted
to give
On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still
> > submit a photographic ID of themselves.
>
> This is not true as far as I know.
I had my key signed by two developers and I had to send my scanned ID.
bye
11 matches
Mail list logo
