-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Am 24.04.2014 11:13, schrieb Peter Lebbing: > I think "authenticity" covers the overtones much better than > "validity", now that you mention it. It even makes me wonder why it > wasn't chosen in the first place :). You have convinced me that it > is the better term to use.
Thank you very much! > I'm not enthousiastic about "ownership", because it feels like a > synonym to "User ID" in OpenPGP context. Yes, I simply posted both options that had occurred to me, but thinking a bit more about it I agree that "authenticity" is the better term. The word "ownership" only works with another word (established, confirmed, ascertained), because it is not a property of the UserID itself. I can't say a UserID "has ownership", it's the other way around. And the question is not "Who owns this UserID?", but rather "Who owns this key? Is it the entity behind this UserID?" - that's not nearly as clear as "Is this UserID authentic (for this key)?". Finally, speaking of computed, fractional values of ownership sounds weird, too. So yes, "authenticity" gets the point across better and would also work as a drop-in replacement of "validity". Cheers gabe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTWYyEAAoJEO7XEikU4kSz4EsIAJ/nUGES7nLxOkJeyJCeB9s6 tg3dt0d7S32cqXSetttGAproFIDu17wwNHT1Fq+zBRI/kuATy+SkwzDh/j5GCVy2 h5wpgXGJWLQJgpVg5K/4Xe8pHBR4L+C+2q7mbXD12gGyAEOOQDU9LmijNH4eLFSH jYLp7ndd8d867VgBoiOG/GGLhi19SGRn+cH0fbMkGsFuSGy3pDMMSB6JRcAAkza8 1t6LmcqCbXHNoXCdXVJ0ia23wkyPenGOe7qY9wlZwHS/X+kZOG60uLmmWzTtNVi+ tJ0hU9tre+6aUS9wyB1pv2iH1zFOnRFOkV5+2wUKJcI2ZI0q5retZgXSl5v9lSw= =BCq0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
