GPA `improvements'

[Miguel Coca]

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 14:33:19 +0100, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> On Saturday 09 November 2002 14:23, Miguel Coca wrote:
> > So, for example, for key validity we don't make a distinction between
> > "ultimate" and "full" trust, and there is no "marginal" level. Keys
> > are either valid, unknown, or revoked/expired (i.e. not valid, but we
> > tell the user why).
>=20
> I'm wondering what you display for invalid keys (i.e. keys which are=20
> missing a self-signature).

It's not valid, and it's not revoked nor expired, so it falls into the
"Unknown" category.

I could add a special case, along with revoked and expired, and say why it
is not valid. But I think that "invalid" is not a good name for it. I mean,
if we are talking about key "validity", all keys that are not valid, by
definition, are invalid.

So it doesn't make sense to use "invalid" to mean just some of the non-valid
keys. If someone can suggest a reasonable term for keys without a
self-signature, that doesn't sound too confusing for new users, I'll add it
to the list.

But anyway, is it even possible to import an invalid key with gpgme?
Certainly it isn't with a simple "gpg --import".

Regards,
--=20
Miguel Coca                                         e970095@zipi.fi.upm.es
PGP Key 0x27FC3CA8                         http://zipi.fi.upm.es/~e970095/

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

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

iD8DBQE9zR8ujE3Htif8PKgRAu3oAKCyXhxktiPCKu+s6zRuGYHnItySdACcChqe
7QlnDdorR+lahsdfCoaeFE8=
=S7zF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--