On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 08:57:08PM +0200, Martin F. Krafft wrote:
> also sprach Taral (on Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:41:44PM -0500):
[snip]
> > No. Changing the expiration date invalidates the signatures.
>
> does it?
[snip]
> Command> check <sorry Richard>
> uid Martin F. Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> sig! 330C4A75 2001-06-20 [self-signature]
> sig! 888354F7 2001-07-02 Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No problem, my key is on the key servers anyway! :-)
> but maybe someone can tell me what the subkey (D99FEE8D) is? that's
> for encryption, right? that's not signed by anyone anyway, is it?
> cause i don't seem to be capable of changing the expiration date on
> that one.
You can, you only need to know how to select it; with "key 1". ;-)
> and besides, i noticed a lot of the keys on debian users are with
> expiration dates. that's a good thing (tm). but judging from the
> wast amounts of signatures some people have collected, i doubt that
> process takes place every year, again and again...
IMHO, expiring encryption keys are a Good Thing. Expiring signature
keys are not. Of course, someone could conceivably, /theoretically/
set up a number cruncher to crack your key with that c00l discrete
logarithm algorithm they knocked up the other day, and succeed after 3
years -- but the web of trust destroyed by the expiration of your key
is a much worse situation, and could allow much more real-life
attacks.
Hm, now that I try to think this through in detail, it doesn't make
sense... why do you have a separate encryption ElGamal key, anyway?
Cheers,
Richard
--
__ _
|_) /| Richard Atterer | CS student at the Technische | GnuPG key:
| \/�| http://atterer.net | Universit�t M�nchen, Germany | 0x888354F7
� �` �
PGP signature
