Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 30 May 2006, Wouter Verhelst spake thusly:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:28:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell stated:
>>>> Perhaps my just-posted message has too many words to see my point.
>>>> In the paragraph above, marked >>>, which was written by you, you
>>>> speak of deception and forgery. Nothing in the reports of the
>>>> recent incident involving Martin suggests any deception and
>>>> forgery. What about this incident makes you think that any kind
>>>> of deception or forgery was going on?
>>> I really think either you are deliberately being obtuse, or
>>> nothing I can say will get this through to you. I fail to see how
>>> one can assert that there was no forgery going on -- do you
>>> automatically assume that if a shiney laminated document with some
>>> random issueing authority listed on it is not forged?
>> What Martin Krafft showed you was,
> How do I know that person actually was Martin Krafft?
This is getting ridiculuous. If what I've read about the incident is
correct, the same person also showed a German ID card with identical
information about the person. Either you believe ID cards, then you
believe it was Martin Krafft. Or you don't, then you shouldn't ask
people to revoke their signatures on Martin Krafft's key - when I signed
his key, I verified his identity with an ID that I trusted and still
trust. Why should I revoke the signature or not sign his new key, when
you don't even know whether it was really him?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)