-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sorry for that... plaintext follows:
Adam Back wrote:
For these reasons I still argue that we should:
- add storage keys to the standard
...
- use storage key escrow to implement PGP snoopware instead of
burdening
the OpenPGP standard with the stigma of GAK compliancy
...
- don't use the special sub-packet type to flag GAK compliancy
...
- scrap the controversial SMTP snoopware policy enforcement app
I agree 100%.
Hall Finney wrote:
For a key to say "I am storage-only" means that it is not intended
to be
used for communications. An email program would ignore such keys
and not
try to encrypt messages to them.
Is this your intention? I don't see what problem it solves. Email
keys
would presumably be marked as communications-only. All you would
have accomplished is to prevent people from encrypting disk files
with
email keys. We can discuss this kind of feature but it would be
helpful
to understand the specific goals better.
I think Adam answered this quite well in his post "the case for
separate
comms keys"
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNED8Q5pi0bQULdFRAQE9CwQAo7dmn+gskvw/hkS4/BoBoP0fQtgyLQ6M
O57Mz9M7r3BiHUrZuP0mLwtIIoTfsbhQ6drzgRXmYTpmaseREjSu//cSURRqp5/I
O2t/3ZKoVa1P5ULoOTCW6KbSoNRfkFGh5bnAiMyiyAE6f72kcPLBhFRZEamnvIIj
xT1TNnRjlD0=
=DIQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----