Best practice for periodic key change?

Jerome Baum jerome at
Sat May 7 17:03:19 CEST 2011

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 15:54, MFPA <expires2011 at> wrote:

> (snip huge email)

Next time can you read the whole email and reply to it as a whole?

As for signature checking, I stand by my point: Over here, signing a
document today and claiming on the signature that it was signed tomorrow is
going to be an offense (if there is a loss to a third party, of course -- a
lie isn't fraud until there is damage).

The post-dated cheque doesn't say "I signed this in the future", but "only
accept this from that point in the future". That's a big difference. As for
the clerk, he's an idiot and probably liable for accepting it. It's not my
problem if people don't check the signature timestamp, I can only do my part
on making the date accurate -- plus maybe educating my recipient on checking
the timestamp.

As for the "expert" witness, you can bring in an expert to claim anything.
That doesn't change the facts and isn't relevant to this argument. You
assumption on what a court would decide is the kind of assumption you said I
can't make -- which, as Hauke points out, I didn't.

As for months vs. years, I wanted a clear example. Doesn't really make a
difference -- 1304780513 is different from 1304780514, and also different
from 1404780513. What's your point? That the guy checking my signature is
being careless by only checking the year? See the clerk point above.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110507/e1ac8bb2/attachment.htm>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list