From: Christian Odhner <cdodhner@PrimeNet.Com> I trust a key to be an introducer if and when I am sure that a signature by that key means that the signed key belongs to the identity (be it "real" or a 'nym) it claims to represent. There is a qualitative difference between a real identity and a pseudonym identity. A real identity has a body attached to it and a pseudonym identity does not. The phrase "belongs to" cannot be used in the same sense for both of these, and the failure to discriminate between them is a fallacy. With a pseudonym, the identity _is_ the key. All you need to do is to ensure that the pattern of bits in the key does not change during distribution. As far as an MIT autosigner, the signature will simply represent a reduction to the trustability of the MIT account assignment procedure. This is not a reduction to bodily identity and should not be construed as such. In fact, a MIT autosigner is exactly what I was talking about when I advocated that communication provider sign keys. (Good work as usual, Derek.) The signature here represents an attestation that a given key (that is, a given identity) can be reached through a particular mailbox. Almost all email is effectively pseudonymous already, even if there is a shadow of the procession of bodies behind the email. It makes good sense to speak of mailing to a key; this is the logical operation of creating an informational space accessible only to the holder of a secret. A mailbox is merely a physical and technical means for reaching that space. Eric