On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 20:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I hate to poo-poo this, but this "web of trust" sounds more like a "web
> of confusion". I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
> announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
> 'web of %$*&" to be set up t
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I hate to poo-poo this, but this "web of trust" sounds more like a "web
> of confusion". I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
> announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
> 'web of %$*&" to be set up to che
I hate to poo-poo this, but this "web of trust" sounds more like a "web
of confusion". I liked the idea of mentioning the MD5 in the email
announcement. It doesn't require much extra work, and doesn't require a
'web of %$*&" to be set up to check things. Yea, it isn't as secure as
going through
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 18:27, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
> >
> > [Re: everybody sharing a single key]
> >
> > This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
> > that is signing a key
On Wed, 11 Feb 2003, Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 18:53, Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> [Re: everybody sharing a single key]
>
> This issue doesn't change regardless of the mechanism you pick. Anyone
> that is signing a key must take reasonable measures to ensure the
> protection of thei
