Problem with faked-system-time option

Hauke Laging mailinglisten at
Wed Jun 15 10:56:21 CEST 2011

Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 03:16:16 schrieb Jerome Baum:

> So, um, let's just start using a non-standardized notation in the "@"
> namespace and then wait for standardization?

A good procedure.

> 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?

Shall I repeat the proposal, or is that a question to Werner? :-)

"The signer makes no statement about the content of the signed data (may not 
even have been able to read it) but only confirms its existance at the time of 
the given timestamp."

PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110615/8cdf30a7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list