On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Niels Laukens <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-02-07 15:09, David Shaw wrote: >> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:12 AM, Niels Laukens <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm trying to figure out what the influence is of the different >>> signature types (0x10-0x13). As far as I can tell, they only _indicate_ >>> the signers trust in his own sig, but isn't used in any way by GPG. Is >>> this correct? >> >> Basically correct. All of the signature types are equal except for >> the influence of --min-cert-level. By default, that's set to 2, so >> the 0x11 "persona" signature is ignored when building the trustdb. A >> signature whose very definition indicates that the person didn't >> check before making it, is probably one you want to skip :) > > OK, would it make sense to use this level in the trust calculation? > Similar to the `marginal` ownertrust: three type 0x12 sigs equivalent to > one type 0x13 sig? With the numbers configurable, preferably. > > I guess this would make the trustdb calculations a little more > complicated, because both ownertrust and siglevel need to be taken into > account, but to me it feels like a "better" way. > > Or am I missing some obvious reasons why this is a bad idea? Nope, this could be done. There are a few reasons it hasn't, including that it would make the trust model incompatible (in the sense that a path that exists using GnuPG might not exist in PGP and vice versa) with other implementations. There is no reason why someone couldn't write an *additional* trust model that takes that into account, though. It just takes someone who wants it badly enough. The OpenPGP standard doesn't have much to say about different trust models - it's mostly left up to the implementations to decide how to resolve whether a key is considered usable or not. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
