1995-12-29 - Re: Proxy/Representation?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: “David E. Smith” <dsmith@midwest.net>
Message Hash: 71f31ffb306f16214a436b326cf209ef537abbc898bae35b2bac64894ebbd939
Message ID: <199512290024.TAA10333@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199512290017.SAA00619@cdale1.midwest.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-29 06:55:23 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 14:55:23 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 14:55:23 +0800
To: "David E. Smith" <dsmith@midwest.net>
Subject: Re: Proxy/Representation?
In-Reply-To: <199512290017.SAA00619@cdale1.midwest.net>
Message-ID: <199512290024.TAA10333@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

"David E. Smith" writes:
> >The right way to do this in the digital world, IMHO, is to have a
> >standard for "Power of Attorney" documents, and for the entity
> >receiving something signed in your key that should be signed in
> >another person's key to also see the digitally signed power of
> >attorney document. Then the entity can check the signature on the
> >power of attorney was in Helen's key, and that the signed key in that
> >document was the key that signed the document signed by the "attorney".

> That's more of what I was looking for.  I suppose that (I'm still using
> PGP as my example) there could be a shared PGP key, signed by Helen and
> myself, where only the two of us know the passphrase,

Huh? Why? Why would you need such a thing? If you reread what I wrote
above, you would see that such a thing is completely unneeded.