This IS about GD - a proposal on dealing with the problem
bob.henson at galen.org.uk
Sat Sep 10 10:30:45 CEST 2005
David Shaw wrote:
>> Also, these are not "junk" signatures. They have semantic meaning,
>> and are used by many people. Please clarify what makes a signature a
>> "junk" signature. I'd like to understand why you classify them that
Put it the other way round - what useful purpose do they serve? I haven't
seen one yet, ergo they are junk. I don't even like the added signatures
when a key is edited, unless it is that particular signature that is edited
I would prefer to see the original signature date. Cleaning the key removes
the older ones, instead of the junk ones.
>> Why the outrage? I really don't understand why people are so hopping
>> mad about this. Turn on "import-clean" in your gpg.conf and you'll
>> never see more than one GD signature at a time.
It may do with the nightly builds, but it doesn't yet work on the release
version of GPG.
Sadly, I doubt PGP corporation would take any notice of a petition - they
don't even listen to and reply their paid subscribers comments, never mind
those that don't use PGP.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050910/4c32769a/signature.pgp
More information about the Gnupg-users