Problem with faked-system-time option

Jerome Baum jerome at
Wed Jun 15 03:16:16 CEST 2011

>> Why modify the standard?
> Because signature notations are supposed to be standardized. There aren't any
> yet though. Nobody suffers from defining a string to mark timestamp-only
> signatures. That is easily parsable both for software and for humans.
> Timestamps are an important application. I don't think that there is any equal
> solution.
> Furthermore this might make signature notations more popular. IMHO they are a
> very useful nonetheless nearly unused feature.

Good points (I think "notations are supposed to be standardized" is a
bit strong, but there is use in certain standardized notations so I
agree with your point overall).

So, um, let's just start using a non-standardized notation in the "@"
namespace and then wait for standardization? We just need to agree on
a name, maybe Werner can confirm we are free to use
"timestamp-only at"? What would the value mean?

Jerome Baum
tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list