UI terminology for calculated validities
mailinglisten at hauke-laging.de
Fri May 2 04:38:17 CEST 2014
Am Sa 26.04.2014, 13:43:32 schrieb MFPA:
> > Thus I would like to offer "accepted" as a possible
> > alternative. I guess that shows the user decision.
> > Maybe even as a combination: "authenticity accepted".
> In the case of a non-exportable signature made simply to allow me to
> encrypt to a key, I am not "accepting" or "authenticating" or
> "validating" or "verifying" that key. All I am doing is "activating"
> it for use.
This may be a language problem (on my side) but in my understanding you
do exactly that: You accept a key for usage. Whether you verify it
before is your decision. And thus I prefer "accept" over "authenticate"
because "authentication" is an opinion (not only in the quality you do
that but also in whether you do it at all or not) but "accepting" is a
simple fact. Facts are easier to handle than opinions.
As more than one year has not been enough for me to write a
certification policy for my new key all my certifications are local
ones. I hope you don't misunderstand the feature: Local signature is not
meant as "rather useless signature" but just as "not for the public".
I have local certifications at cerification level 1 (your case) and 3.
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...
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Gnupg-users