From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:17:37 +0800
To: unicorn@schloss.li
Subject: Re: Senator, your public key please?
Message-ID: <01I4ZHDZ4B2S8Y5IL9@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 18-MAY-1996 14:43:54.95

>Well, this depends on what we assume a signature does.

	Quite. I've been considering what the _current_ (as opposed to the
proposed) system of keys actually does. Signing a key says two things:
	A. I think that everyone who has the corresponding private key is
willing, or was willing at some point, for all the others also with the private
key to encrypt and decrypt using it. E.g., it hasn't been stolen; I'd thus be
more willing to sign a security-conscious person's key (e.g., Perry) than a
security-unconscious person's key (e.g., my mother).
	B. If there's a true email address attached, unless I'm doing this as
a joke, I think that at least one entity capable of receiving (and probably
sending) mail at that address has the corresponding private key.
	Neither of these appear to imply much patronage, unless Senators aren't
allowed to send letters of reference for security-related jobs. (I'd think the
Army could consult a Senator on whether to give someone a clearance...)
	-Allen