On 09/18/15 16:57, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> After thinking about this for a time, I'd rather suggest to >> completely remove the feature "Display untrusted keys". > > After thinking about this and the poor-language issue in general, I've > come to the following conclusions: > > 1. I'm absolutely right when I said that we need to only change the > language *once*. > 2. Other people are right when they say that we need to change the > language. > > So here's what I'm proposing: we revisit the language issue ourselves, > right now. If we wait on a loose consensus process, we're never going > to get anywhere. We have to get out ahead of this, drive this, but our > ultimate decision has to be informed by at least GnuPG, and maybe > Symantec's PGP as well. > > The #1 use case is "Untrusted good signature". This is really two > separate statements: "(Non-validated in the certificate sense) (valid in > the signature sense) signature." How should we represent this to the > end-user? If you can't clearly improve on "Untrusted good signature," > then your proposal's probably not going to fly.
"Valid signature using untrusted key..." ? -- Phil Stracchino Babylon Communications [email protected] [email protected] Landline: 603.293.8485
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
