On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 12:13:27PM +0200, Realos wrote:
>
> >It would disallow freeform UIDs.
>
> I think free-form UIDs carry no importance in the current implementations of
> gpg/pgp. Signatures on them do not contribute to WoT so this would not
> be a big loss, I suppose.
No, free-form UIDs a
>It would disallow freeform UIDs.
I think free-form UIDs carry no importance in the current implementations of
gpg/pgp. Signatures on them do not contribute to WoT so this would not
be a big loss, I suppose.
The big advantage would more clean keys and advantage of removing keys
once challenge/re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Was Thu, 27 Oct 2005, at 10:51:22 +0200,
when Realos wrote:
[about the personal web pages for public PGP keys]
> Yes this may be the best of both types of servers. It seems to be a
> very small change in protocol.
Well, the protocols ar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Realos wrote:
>>It turns out that this way is even the best one (so far; and in the
>>"category" of the worldwide scattering of the keys): you can't upload
>>any key without authorization, and you can upload as much of them as you
>>want/need.
>
>
>It turns out that this way is even the best one (so far; and in the
>"category" of the worldwide scattering of the keys): you can't upload
>any key without authorization, and you can upload as much of them as you
>want/need.
Yes this may be the best of both types of servers. It seems to be a ver
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:41:45PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 05:16:43PM +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>
> >>That's not the only reason though. The PGP Global Keyserver is dangerous, as
> >>well as a nuisance, for a number of reasons. As it only shows one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Was Sun, 23 Oct 2005, at 13:27:05 -0400,
when David wrote:
> It always amuses me that people complain bitterly about the GD storing
> one key per email address, but don't complain, for example, about
> people putting their key up on a web
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 05:16:43PM +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>>That's not the only reason though. The PGP Global Keyserver is dangerous, as
>>well as a nuisance, for a number of reasons. As it only shows one key on a
>>search for a users name, it might cause people to miss a rev
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 05:16:43PM +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
> > Some people do not like this server as it does email address
> > verification (via sending a mail to the email address on the key, if
> > any), and then signs the key. These signatures are reissued every 2
> > weeks or so if people k
