User Ids without email address (was: Re: Revocation of a user id?)

David Shaw
Sun Mar 23 16:31:02 2003

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 01:02:24PM +0100, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> On Friday 21 March 2003 23:49, David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 10:50:30PM +0100, Volker Augustin wrote:
> > > Secondly, what are the implications of this? Does this break my
> > > signature on other peoples keys? And does this mean that other
> > > peoples signatures on that user id can no longer be used by third
> > > people to establish a key chain to my key? (which would implicate
> > > that this user id should simply not be used going forward but
> > > signatures made to it or signatures made by it still remain valid).
> >
> > Trust is chained via user IDs, so if you have multiple user IDs, and
> > a person signed them all, if you revoke one it does not matter from
> > the perspective of that person.  If the person only signed one user
> > ID, and you revoke that one, then the chain stops that that point.
> So in order to avoid the loss of trust chains because of no longer used=
> resp. lost email addresses it seems to make sense to add a user id=20
> without email address to each key. This user id will always be valid=20
> unless one changes his name, e. g. because of marriage. But even then=20
> the user id could still be considered as valid; maybe people who=20
> consider changing their name in case of marriage should add a comment=20
> like "birthname" to this user id.
> Are there reasons not to add a user id without email address?

It used to be fairly common to do that.  These days, it is so easy to
get permanent email addresses it has become a bit less common.  Some
people still do it.  I think Werner has a key like that.


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

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2rc1 (GNU/Linux)