Best practice for periodic key change?

Jerome Baum jerome at
Sat May 7 23:10:50 CEST 2011

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:07, MFPA <expires2011 at> wrote:

> On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 9:52:51 PM, in
> <mid:BANLkTi=nwTMCChQ96OLpKHdMOVunSOqZgA at>, Jerome Baum
> wrote:
> > I don't think you get what kind of assumption we are
> > talking about. There are two kinds:
> > 1. I assume something is generally true, e.g.: I assume
> > the world is around.
> > 2. I assume something is true within this scope, so I
> > don't have to restate the precondition with every
> > statement I make, e.g.: "assuming y < z, and z < x, we
> > can follow that y < x". It isn't really an argument to
> > say "you can't assume y < z, so the point is invalid".
> I agree that in this specific instance we can assume y < z. I do not
> agree that in general we can assume that an individual with expiry
> dates on their subkeys keeps their master key securely offline.

... which isn't what we were doing. Let me explain that again. Assuming
something "in general" is a type 1 assumption. We were doing a type 2
assumption -- assuming something to simply a point. It would become tedious
to keep writing "if the individual in question keeps their master key
securely offline" before each and every sentence.

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/ffd97aff/attachment.htm>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list