Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
To: Brett Lymn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 10/15/2002 11:29:35
[ On Tuesday, October 15, 2002 at 20:58:49 (+0930), Brett Lymn wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: what's in a name? fingerprinted exec
> Yes.. I agree with all the above but I thought "fingerprinted exec"
> too cumbersome myself, some other thoughts for names I just had were:
> 1) secure exec
> 2) trusted exec
> 3) verified exec
I think "secure" is way too far loaded with incorrect and even
potentaily damaging connotations and (mis-)perceptions.
> At the moment I think 2 conveys what I am on about best...(but 1 means
> less changes for me ;-)
I'm not sure "trusted" is exactly right either.
I think "verified" is really more along the lines of what's being done.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>