Re: PoP & Signer's User ID subpacket?

[Len Sassaman <rabbi@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Young wrote:

> "David Shaw" <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > The only thing that really troubles me about the idea is that it
> > raises problems for the (legal, to my reading of 2440) encrypt-only v4
> > key.
>
> This doesn't trouble me... I strongly believe that we should
> remove the loophole that allows encrypt-only top-level v4 keys,
> for exactly this reason.  (I was astounded when David pointed out
> the seemingly permissive language in another forum.)

Agreed.

> Why is it important to be able to generate such a thing?  Is it such a
> burden to have to generate a signing key?
>
> [If you don't care about uid validity, which you mustn't if you're
> using an encrypt-only top-level key now, then you could even attach a
> bogus top-level key, which would take virtually no time to generate.]