Anne Wilson wrote:
I could always raise a bug report, but when it comes down to it,
it hard to express why I think that I'm right and they're wrong.
you should and reason is simple. they changed the way it was. :)
if it was previously 'fully trusted' and some dap decided to change it to
'ultimately trusted' and there is no longer a 'fully trusted' option,
there should be in upgrade something to read in what was 'fully trusted'.
this is one of the many problems with programmers who use 'high level'
programming. their minds and thinking are not up to level of what they use.
I just feel that Ultimate should be reserved for your own key and
you have properly verified.
why should someone have to define their own key?
why make a difference in classification of 'fully' and 'ultimate'?
Yes, I've seen the argument that the passports I checked could
forged, but they had been inspected by immigration, so I'm not going to worry
about that :-)
if you are checking keys and verify that they are good, then they should be
good. unless there is a flaw in how you verify. which is something in respect
to what poc was talking about indirectly in another thread.
only true way to know that a key is good is to get it from other person
and they properly identify themselves, or from someone you know and can
be fully trust.
> glad you got it worked out. now you can sleep even better tonight.
I hate mysteries. Even when it's something that doesn't stop
me working, it
really does bug me until I've sorted it. :-)
i know what you mean and is one more of your many qualities that i admire
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today.
to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it.
to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it.
'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html
'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/
'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html