Problem with faked-system-time option

Jerome Baum jerome at
Thu Jun 16 00:02:27 CEST 2011

> Out of curiosity, as long as we're talking about things that current code will reject, does the 0x50 signature meet the semantics desired here?  This all sounds vaguely notary-like ("I saw this document on such-and-such date") to me, and the intent of 0x50 is a notary signature.  The nice thing about a 0x50 signature is that it is a signature on a signature, so the timestamp service doesn't need to see the document - just the (detached) signature.

My understanding of a notary's job would include "I trust this key to
be valid, in possession only of the person named in the uid, while
that person was in sufficient mental state, not being threatened at
gun-point, ..." -- why should we use a signature type that could be
misinterpreted, when there is a "timestamp" signature type that fits
our needs exactly?

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