On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 20:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I hate to poo-poo this, but this web of trust sounds more like a web
of confusion. I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$* to be set up to check
On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
[Re: everybody sharing a single key]
This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
that is signing a key must take reasonable measures to ensure the
protection of their key.
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:27, Curt Sampson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
[Re: everybody sharing a single key]
This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
that is signing a key must take
I hate to poo-poo this, but this web of trust sounds more like a web
of confusion. I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$* to be set up to check things. Yea, it isn't as secure as
going through the
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I hate to poo-poo this, but this web of trust sounds more like a web
of confusion. I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$* to be set up to check things.
