Bug list update, 02.12.2002

[Markus Gerwinski]

--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Miguel Coca wrote:
> > > In that case, the correct behaviour would be to make the other key the
> > > default one.
> > I think, even then the user should be warned. And if there were more than two
> > secret keys before, which one shall be the next default key then?
> Ok, we can add a dialog that says something like "The default key was
> deleted, key XXXXXXXX will be the default now [OK]".

For example. I (hopefully) think, a message box like this will prevent some
users from cursing us. :-)

> > > > ... I see. So, a key is looked upon as valid, if
> > > >  - it's signed by someone I've got at least "full" ownertrust to or
> > > Yes, but that signing key must be valid too.
> > So it must be signed itself with a key I trust? (E.g. my own one?)
> Yes.
> > > Also, three marginally trusted keys can validate a key, too.
> > You mean, three keys definitely belonging to owners I marginally trust?
> Right.

Thanks alot. I really had a knowledge deficit here.

> > (Maybe in the long run, we should add kind of a graphical visualization of
> > the web of trust to GPA...)
> That would be *really* cool. However, it should be restricted to a single
> key (there are tools to graph the web of trust of an entire keyring, but
> they take *forever* to draw a graph that doesn't make that much sense).

Agreed. A graph of the entire keyring may be funny, but I don't see any
practical use in it. For a single key it could make sense.

Yours,

  Markus

--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE98HWl6Sp5Kx1roGARAhcIAKDH7Gi3BDNRRSblf19K2BLNd3Ne1ACePebM
HCh+UEwJn1AHVBxDRLPnDKI=
=yZc6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--