influence of signature type on trustdb
niels at dest-unreach.be
Thu Feb 7 18:25:56 CET 2013
On 2013-02-07 17:25, David Shaw wrote:
> Nope, this could be done. There are a few reasons it hasn't,
> including that it would make the trust model incompatible (in the
> sense that a path that exists using GnuPG might not exist in PGP and
> vice versa) with other implementations.
> There is no reason why someone couldn't write an *additional* trust
> model that takes that into account, though. It just takes someone
> who wants it badly enough. The OpenPGP standard doesn't have much to
> say about different trust models - it's mostly left up to the
> implementations to decide how to resolve whether a key is considered
> usable or not.
Ok, I'll put "write another trust model" on my todo-list. But not under
the "I need this badly" section. Rather under "If I have nothing more
useful to do".
Over the past few days' I've been thinking about it, and it seems to be
a very complex problem. Mostly because the quantitiy involved (trust) is
not very well defined (which I consider a feature in general, but a bug
in this particular context).
More information about the Gnupg-users