Group Membership Keyring

John Clizbe JPClizbe at
Wed Mar 23 22:54:29 CET 2011

Mike Acker wrote:
> I really liked the idea of having the Membership Secretary sign a Public
> Keyring for the Group Members and then to circulate that keyring to the
> membership.

That's just super-neato great, but what does it have to do with the message
thread you replied to dealing with 4096-bit keys? Oh right, not a damned thing.

If you wish to start a new thread, then post a new message to the list.
DO NOT just reply to an existing thread and change the subject -- that is known
politely as "hijacking a thread."

Also, please do not add people to a post if they have no prior involvement. You
changed the subject, you also started with an empty slate of people interested
in it.

> How to implement though, as members will need an additional keyring for
> each group they have a membership with.
> Ideally the keyring would be used in place of an address book and
> associated with an e/mail account.  this thinking is based on the idea
> that a Secure Group would expect its members to have a dedicated e/mail
> account reserved for the use only by the members of the secure group.
> i'll have to try some poking around and run some tests.  I don't see
> making VM a requirement as a workable solution.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 886 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110323/89126ff6/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list