A bug in version 1.2.1?
Sat Dec 14 01:51:55 2002
Content-Description: signed data
On Thursday 12 December 2002 03:29, Michael Nahrath wrote:
> Ingo Kl=F6cker <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
No. I'm not talking about the ownertrust. I'm talking about the "key=20
trust" resp. the validity of the key. (Unfortunately "trust" is used=20
for two different things in GnuPG.)
A key is valid if
a) it's an ultimately trusted key (like your own keys)
b) it's signed by yourself
c) it's signed with a valid key of a person you trust
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----