On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Einar Ryeng wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 04:26:16PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > > What i meaned whith my initial post was that it should in the > > future not be possible to sign someones pub key directly, to > > prevent unwanted signatures. Sure one can revoke his/her pub > > key, but how often would you like to do that if a "prankster" > > has lot's of energy? > > What harm do your see in "fake" signatures? There is a possibility of someone > making your key excessively large to download by adding tons of signatures to > it. If that happens, the correct place to fix it is probably the keyserver > code. Your "signed signatures" proposal would not inherently eliminate this > problem; Alice would still need to make a signature on Bob's key and upload it > to the server in order to allow Bob to download and sign the signature. > > Is there any other problem arising from someone signing your key without > "permission"? > > If you only want this for decluttering purposes, you will probably achieve > something similar by only looking at mutually signed keys. It won't be exactly > same, because the keys then have signed each other directly rather than each > other's signature packets, but depending on your problem it may do the job for > you. > > -- > Einar Ryeng
Hi, what harm do i see with "fake" signatures or signatures without permission? Well, i think everybody here or elsewere can imagine by themselves how "happy" one would be to receive unwanted signatures, depending on the content... Regards Stefan _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users