Retaining expired sigs

Jason Harris jharris at
Wed Mar 23 02:11:48 CET 2005

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 02:03:06PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:41:46PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote:
> > As you seem to have concluded, that fact takes precedence in my
> > logic, and as I have concluded, it seems to take no precedence in
> > yours.
> I can only conclude that we are talking completely past one another.

Then that only started with your last message, AFAICT.  Prior to that,
you seemed quite clear that the subject was about superceded non-
revocable sigs.  You even provided examples which, although they
failed to prove your assertions, were about superceded non-revocable

> You do seem to be very upset about all this, but I'm not detecting any

Not at all.  All my past statements still stand - the underlining and
change in tone were for emphasis only.

> more signal amidst the noise.  I'm afraid I need to drop out of this
> thread as I'm not really sure what you are advocating, or why, or if


> you're just arguing to argue.  I'm genuinely sorry you don't seem to
> be parsing what I'm saying, but there is nowhere else to go at this
> point.

I understand your statements quite well, as I had hoped would be clear
each time I summarized them, found them to be bad examples, etc.

> If you have an actual change suggestion, I'd love to hear it.  But I
> really do need:
> 1) What you think the current behavior is
> 2) What you want it to be
> 3) Why you feel this is better

AFAICT, each and every one of my messages on the subject of superceded
non-revocable signatures has carried the same message:  they should be

Last time I mentioned this, it seemed to help, so I'll say it again:
We have a difference of opinion (over superceded non-revocable signatures).
AFAICT, I understand your opinions just fine, and I thought we were
communicating just fine.

But, I do not wish to continue this thread either.  My past posts
still stand, of course, as I presume yours do, and I'll leave it
at that.

Jason Harris           |  NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
jharris at _|_ web:
          Got photons?   (TM), (C) 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050322/9e198c89/attachment.pgp

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list