From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 06:14:20 +0800
To: Matthew Nuckolls <mnuck@umr.edu>
Subject: Re: cute.
In-Reply-To: <199711011925.UAA05261@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971101165942.0365b498@mail.atl.bellsouth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 02:53 PM 11/1/97 -0600, Matthew Nuckolls wrote:
>What's the point in distribuing your public key through the same
>channels as a signature? Kinda defeats the purpose. Esp since I can't
>verify that the given public key is indeed yours, since you're anonymous.

I don't think the message in question allows you to verify the state issued
id of the key owner, but it does allow you to verify that Amad3us's
message, and all similarly signed messages belong to the same person or
group .

I don't see any need for a key to be traceable to any specific person who
is in fact some particular natural person.  It seems to me that the fact
the message signature is good (I didn't check it) would be tend to prove he
is the owner of the key, since he can write messages with it.  Who he is on
his birth certificate and driver's license are beside the point.


  -- Robert Costner                  Phone: (770) 512-8746
     Electronic Frontiers Georgia    mailto:pooh@efga.org  
     http://www.efga.org/            run PGP 5.0 for my public key