Avi wrote: > Yes, Robert, that is possible. However, IIRC, signatures come with a > time stamp.
The OpenPGP time stamp is not a trusted timestamp and should not be relied upon for any trusted purpose. > In the case I am envisioning, the quotER is taking it from > somwhere, and the quotEE can show the prior, complete post. Assuming you still have a copy of the message, yes. But in the case you're talking about, what does the signature buy you? "Yes, I did write that, but in the full context (available at this link...) you see I meant something quite different." That's as effective with a signature as without. So I don't see how this is an example of the utility of a signature. > Yes, this does not prevent someone from pre-creating two different > messages, but someone resorting to that level of duplicity is both > uncommon and will likely have other prevaricatory methods as well. There's no pre-creation necessary in the scenario I outlined. Maybe I just know an uncommon class of scoundrels, but that level of skullduggery is fairly tame in my experience. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
