Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fe

2000-08-04 Thread Matthew Vernon
Jim Westveer writes: On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote: Dale Scheetz writes: I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, You've not been reading my emails

RE: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fe

2000-07-31 Thread Matthew Vernon
However, by signing an ID, or the email, I have demonstrated that I do infact, possess that private key. Well indeed, but I'd expect to get a gpg-signed mail from my applicant as part of step 2, and I could then check the signature. Matthew -- Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fe

2000-07-30 Thread Wichert Akkerman
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. --