Wed Jul 2 17:03:02 2003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:56:20PM +0200, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 14:06, Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
> > Greetings All!!!
> > I suggest adding new option: --no-aliases. It would suppres displaing
> > other than primary IDs from the key. E.g.:
> > gpg: Podpisano w Wto 24 Cze 12:06:57 2003 CEST kluczem DSA o numerze
> > C9BD2BDC. gpg: Poprawny podpis z?o?ony przez "?ukasz Stelmach
> > <email@example.com>" gpg: alias "?ukasz
> > Stelmach <firstname.lastname@example.org>" gpg: alias
> > "?ukasz Stelmach <lukasz.stelmach@...>" gpg: =20
> > alias "?ukasz Stelmach (2:480/135@FidoNet)"
> > here last three lines would not appear. IMHO in some MUAs (i use
> > mutt) it would make signed messages clearer.
> Actually it's up to the MUA how many aliases it presents. KMail for=20
> example only shows the primary ID. If mutt shows all user ids then you=20
> should probably ask the mutt developers to change this.
There are some interesting interactions when you don't show all IDs.
For example, a key with three IDs, Alice, Baker, and Charlie. The
"Alice" ID is signed and valid. Both "Baker" and "Charlie" are
unsigned and thus invalid. "Charlie" is primary.
Which user ID should the MUA display in this case? Even though
Charlie is primary, the displayed user ID pretty much has to be (at
least) Alice. The local web of trust says the signed message is
"from" Alice. It may or may not be from Baker and/or Charlie.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key available at http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----