On 2012-01-28 06:14, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > It isn't just that no one's written the code: it's there's no community > consensus to deploy such code, even if it were written. It would be a > pretty major flag day. After all, if one keyserver enforces it and > others don't, then that's going to create a pretty obvious syncing problem.
What syncing problem is that? Wouldn't the crypto-supporting keyserver simply sync out (provide to other keyservers) it's published packets and sync in everything (yet drop packets without a "publish" signature)? (So in this scenario I'm assuming the key owner adds e.g. a self-signature with a special notation listing the packets that they want to be published on the keyserver.) Or was this more about "old" keys -- that don't have the special self-signature -- dropping out of the network? How about making the publish control optional -- if the self-sig doesn't say "I want to control my published stuff" then just publish all packets? -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA -- nameserver 217.79.186.148 nameserver 178.63.26.172 http://opennicproject.org/ -- No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
