Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, seth vidal wrote:
>> Holy mother of god. 1999. And the sf version was last released in
>> 2003.
Hehe. Yeah, the original PKS code from Marc Horowitz should *not* be
used. I do believe that many keyservers are still using the PKS
version from sf.net (some with various patches from the keyserver ops
mailing lists). Not a lot changes fast with the PGP key format and
the keyserver contain no crypt code to verify the keys or anything, so
they don't require a lot of maintenance.
(Not that I'm suggesting running a keyserver is a worthwhile use of
time. :)
> Hmm, so good idea or bad idea:
>
> Implement full key functionality in FAS2 for 2.1?
Seems like a waste of valuable time to me. Why does FAS need to use a
keyserver at all? If it does need to use one, using the same default
as gnupg does (subkeys.pgp.net) seems like a sane plan. Any decent
keyserver will sync with the other public keyservers, so placing a lot
of emphasis on any particular one doesn't seem important IMO.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the
matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.
-- Mikhail Bakunin
Attachment:
pgpWpGGrJtM52.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
