Problem with faked-system-time option

Jerome Baum jerome at
Wed Jun 15 17:26:24 CEST 2011

How did we miss that?


Am 15.06.2011 17:15 schrieb "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <dkg at>:

On 06/15/2011 04:56 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 03:16:16 schrieb Jerome Ba...

>> We just need to agree on
>> a name, maybe Werner can confirm we are free to use
>> "timestamp-onl...
I think it is a mistake to make this particular notation, when signature
type 0x40 already exists:

  0x40: Timestamp signature.
      This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp contained in

I'm happy with the proposal to start using notations more, and creating
a culture of publishing well-defined semantics around them; i just don't
think this particular goal is well-served by notations, since it is
already in the core protocol specification.



Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110615/2d85ed83/attachment.htm>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list