key question

MFPA expires2010 at
Fri Feb 26 22:40:14 CET 2010

Hash: SHA512

Hi David

On Friday 26 February 2010 at 4:33:03 PM, you wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

>> On 2/26/10 9:49 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> I thought signing somebody's key was just stating to the world that
>>> you believe the claimed identity of the person who controls that key
>>> at the time you are signing it - not an indication that you are in any
>>> way "associated."
>> I'm scratching my head here trying to figure out how you can reasonably
>> affirm the claimed identity of the person who controls the key if you
>> are in no way associated with them.

> There is associated and then there is associated.  I suspect MFPA
> is using the term in the "met casually, perhaps at a keysigning
> event" sense, and not in the "friends with", or "partners in crime with" sense.

> Both are associated.  The latter two are (forgive me) more associated.

This is an example of what I meant:-

Somebody met me once, briefly. They showed me a genuine-looking
passport that didn't look as if it had been tampered with, they looked
like the photo in the passport (though, hopefully, less ill!), and the
name in the passport matched the UID on the key.

My signature says I believe this person has the name they claim to
have. Nothing more and nothing less.

I would not consider myself to be "associated" with this person,
although I concede that my signature on their key associates us in the
web of trust.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2010 at

COMMITTEE: A body that keeps minutes and wastes hours.


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list