From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: efff33bd573f386d7327978c107a0d5c0d44e9899a8caa9ca979db820fc4b66a
Message ID: <v02120d0cad2cde34e73e@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-26 15:17:44 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 23:17:44 +0800
From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 23:17:44 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: re: [local] Report on Portland Cpunks meeting
Message-ID: <v02120d0cad2cde34e73e@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 13:33 1/24/96, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>If, on the other hand, I sign "Toxic Avenger"'s key, then what benefit is
>this for third parties? Since Toxic Avenger is, by intention, _not_ linked
>to a real person, I'm not saying that I feel confident that this key really
>belongs to any particular real person. What am I saying?
What if the nym is linked to a real person? There are nyms on this list
that people here have met in person, talked with on the phone, etc. Say
that person verifies their key fingerprint. Should one sign the key? I have
signed keys of people without seeing their ID, because I and everyone else
I know knows them under the name on the key.
What if I watch someone _generate_ a key under the nym "Master Blaster"? I
know that "Master Blaster" isn't their real name. Does that mean I
shouldn't sign the key?
-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.
Return to January 1996
Return to “shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)”
1996-01-26 (Fri, 26 Jan 1996 23:17:44 +0800) - re: [local] Report on Portland Cpunks meeting - shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)