Am Dienstag 22 Juni 2010 19:29:32 schrieb David Shaw:
> That's one of the main uses for local signatures - the "I believe this key
> is valid for me, but I'm not willing to say so in public for everyone"
> case. That might be because of privacy, or it might be because Charlie is
> satisfied th
On Jun 22, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, an
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:51:58 -0400, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> I think the situation Daniel points out is one of the better usages for
> local signatures, and probably the main reason for having them in the
> first place.
Actually, looking at the RFC 4880 now, I see that the original
definition de
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
> >
> > I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
> >
> > Alice has met Bob in person and has
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>>> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-expo
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>
> I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
>
> Alice has met Bob in person and has verified his key. Alice does not
> want this information to be pu
On 6/22/10 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>>> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
>>>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to
On 06/22/2010 02:00 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> What do you think "local" signatures are, and what do you think they
> mean? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky, you're asking about
> "intuition," so it makes sense to address the base assumptions.)
non-exportable certifications are simply certificat
On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>
>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
>>
>> It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
>
> It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of this, which
> would only allow import
I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of this, which
would only allow import of local signatures where the corresponding
secret key was
12 matches
Mail list logo
