1996-05-10 - Re: PGP, Inc.

Header Data

From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
To: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Message Hash: 81588034cafdd2fe89dd7fa9edc07a31eec9a72d3acfcbc6cd062249e6a36f72
Message ID: <v02120d09adb880179541@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-10 21:49:43 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 05:49:43 +0800

Raw message

From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 05:49:43 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: PGP, Inc.
Message-ID: <v02120d09adb880179541@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 23:10 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

>        The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP
>key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have
>_any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email
>address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you?

I was on a panel with a representative from VeriSign at Interop in Las
Vegas. He said that uniqueness was the only requirement for the first level
of cert. I don't have any information beyond that.


Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer.

-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com>
   PGP encrypted mail preferred.







Thread