A bug in version 1.2.1?
Thu Dec 12 03:28:01 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ingo Kl=C3=B6cker <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 2002-12-12 01:31 Uhr:
>>> You need to at least lsign the key. Assign NO trust if you like,
>>> but KMail will not let you encrypt to a key you have not signed.
> That's not entirely true. KMail will not allow the usage of untrusted
> keys. The keys don't have to be necessarily signed by the user himself.
> Anyway, I will probably make it possible to use untrusted keys after
> showing a confirmation dialog like you proposed.
What do you mean by "trust"?
Does it help to raise the level of "trust" for a key you want to encrypt to
(by doing 'gpg --edit-key 0x12345678 trust' upon this key)?
What is the logic in this?
I thought "trust" was something about how I rate people's accuracy in
signing other's keys. Don't untrusted people deserve to get encrypted mail?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.1 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----