Problem with faked-system-time option

David Shaw dshaw at
Thu Jun 16 19:32:51 CEST 2011

On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:

> (In the context below, "we" refers to the people to whom the
> respective statement applies.)
>> I got into this discussion because there was talk of new subpackets or sigclasses and a misunderstanding of how notations worked.
> What talk of new subpackets and signature classes? Feel free to quote.

Daniel raised the question of using sigclass 0x40 (not subpacket).

The misunderstanding about notations was that the non-IETF namespace was some sort of temporary place where things could be tried out until IETF standardization came.  You said, and I quote:

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

That's not how notations work.

You know, I actually started responding to the rest of this note, and your actively hostile and accusatory other email, but there is really little point.  You seem to want what you want, and see any discussion as an attack.  Many responses to you on both the subthread of why someone would want this, and also this subthread of how to do it have been met with hostility and condescension.  I'm out.  I have better things to spend time on.


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list