Robots in the WoT

Jason Harris
Wed Jun 25 21:37:01 2003

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 10:40:47AM -0500, Kyle Hasselbacher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 02:02:02PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >Blah. This is what I was afraid would happen someday:
> What's wrong with that?  From what I see, 0x42473204 has no other outside
> signatures that would allow a path.  If you didn't have this path, you'd
> have none at all.

NB:  biglumber users know that sloppy "at" maps to
0x01A50ED0314A30F8B8995854C8877F5A42473204 as long as we can trust Greg,
Greg's code, and that has never been compromised.

But, I also like to see this mapping expressed as a signature from
Robot CA, , on the key.

In fact, I prefer keys that are listed on biglumber, signed by Robot CA,
and have signatures based on in-person meetings.

> >

Also try the trace with a newer version of Jonathan's pathfinder:

and Jorgen's wotsap:

Jason Harris          | NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it? | web:

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)