Global Directory signatures (was Re: GPG wants to check trustdb
atom at suspicious.org
Wed Dec 29 05:16:27 CET 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, David Shaw wrote:
> If what the GD does could have an actual impact on the keyservers and
> web of trust, then the keyservers and web of trust were already
> hopelessly broken.
how many key-servers support the no-modify flag? it's part of the standard
and it could keep these auto-pilot sigs (and other unwanted sigs) from
polluting the system, but it's not supported. to that extent, the key
servers *are* hopelessly broken. biglumber is the closest i've seen to
being a good implementation, in this regard.
> My concern is mainly about the aesthetics here. It's unattractive (and
> over time large) to have that many expired sigs on your key.
not to downplay the matter of aesthetics, but it also becomes a usability
issue if the UI is cluttered with unwanted information.
PGP key - http://atom.smasher.org/pgp.txt
762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts without
sufficient capital to form a corporation."
-- Howard Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)
Comment: What is this gibberish?
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users