[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fe

Jim Westveer writes:
 > On 03-Aug-2000 Matthew Vernon wrote:
 > > Dale Scheetz writes:
 > > 
 > >  > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except
 > >  > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me,
 > > 
 > > You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random people
 > > having a copy of my passport digitised (worse still, digitised and
 > > signed my me). I know other people who would be unhappy about
 > > this. It's not necessary, so ditch it.
 > AAAAHHH its the copy of the passport idea you do not like.
False assertion. 

 > It does NOT say "Passport" or "Drivers Licence" or anything of that sort.
 > It simply says "appropriate piece of photo-identification".

So? Passport was mearly a convenient example. Any form of photo-id
that's meaningful I don't want people to have digitised copies of
lying around.

 > I would think that having ones key signed, as important as it might be,
 > is a totally different level of trust than having ones key put in the
 > Debian keyring. 

*boggle* The whole point of keysigning is that you trust this person,
and they should be included in your web of trust - i.e. your keyring.

Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire

Reply to: