From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 20 2001 - 05:13:52 CDT
In <200109191546.LAA15020@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>Just as a "worst case" on mvgroup, consider the case of moving a group
>from one hierarchy to another, each of which currently uses PGP control
>messages. Just a thought, it does not have to be in the standard (the
>whole topic doesn't in my opinion) but server implementations could
>consider if the hierarchy used in control.ctl or similar is the original
>or the target.
Well, assuming that the administrators of the two hierarchies were in
agreement, I suppose there could be two signature headers (my signed
header draft even allows for that). But I have no doubt that some news
software somewhere would be confused (but would hopefully refer it to a
human for consideration - after that, it would depend on the clue-level
of the human). The Approved header would need to identify both
administrators, of course.
When we come to cleaning up whatever we are going to say about digital
signing of headers (and that is a current topic of discussion on which I
am awaiting your input), then I will see if this case needs some mention.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5