influence of signature type on trustdb

[Niels Laukens]

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).