UI terminology for calculated validities

Hauke Laging mailinglisten at hauke-laging.de
Fri Apr 25 06:43:27 CEST 2014

Am Do 24.04.2014, 15:22:20 schrieb Doug Barton:
> Isn't what you're talking about "verification?" I think the concept of
> "validity" in PGP sort of implies that you have verified that the key
> is valid for that particular user/e-mail address, but wouldn't it be
> better to just say that explicitly?

That's exactly the problem: If you say something explicitly which is not 
always the case then you must not make this explicit statement the only 
possible one.

Many keys get signed without being verified. IMHO this forbids calling 
valid keys "verified keys".

Verification is a subset of accepting. I would really like to make 
"verification" part of this terminology but only as an optional part, 
clearly telling "accepted keys" and "accepted and verified keys" apart. 
Otherwise we just create the next problem.

Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/unterstuetzer/
OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20140425/1d8bfd03/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list