timestamp notation @gnupg.org

[MFPA]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Friday 17 June 2011 at 11:21:12 PM, in
<mid:201106180021.17972.mailinglisten at hauke-laging.de>, Hauke Laging
wrote:



> To me that is quite clear not a problem of the FORMAT
> of the timestamp.

Consider these two formats:-

(A)      Signature made 06/17/11 23:21:17

(B)      Signature made 06/17/11

A signature that contained only the information for (B) would reveal
less about the signer's behaviour than a signature containing the
information for (A).

Whether that's possible as an option is another question, if the date
is stored in the signature packet as seconds since epoch.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com

Put knot yore trust inn spel chequers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQE7BAEBCgClBQJN++X7nhSAAAAAAEAAVXNpZ25pbmdfa2V5X0lEIHNpZ25pbmdf
a2V5X0ZpbmdlcnByaW50IEAgIE1hc3Rlcl9rZXlfRmluZ2VycHJpbnQgQThBOTBC
OEVBRDBDNkU2OSBCQTIzOUI0NjgxRjFFRjk1MThFNkJENDY0NDdFQ0EwMyBAIEJB
MjM5QjQ2ODFGMUVGOTUxOEU2QkQ0NjQ0N0VDQTAzAAoJEKipC46tDG5pFM0EAJFd
9GXFy/MtnXG+VBS3vTxhwD9Zkz3LFKK9gZ9ShYYNGRyl1eJYX51/vLgyc5T2XvcU
Qk6Vq2pW6Btx2MjF0Bnal04k8KCzIQQs7G2adwwBp1Xfx6jw5edueVDWb/wZUZ7R
4GdKZ5Pmi3UobShn4xVzW8tr0OOdq2CnHaNWlnxO
=C3q5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----