Re: Lying about Hockeypuck being SKS?

[Philihp Busby]

I think (c) is fine to keep the pool alive. This community has a devout adherence to a tradition of inaction. I'm not holding my breath for (b), but I would be delighted if someone did more than just talk about it.

I hold that switching to hkps://keys.openpgp.org is the path forward, and we should encourage key owners to verify with it. On 2021-03-22T20:41:31+0100 Marcel Waldvogel <marcel.waldvo...@trifence.ch> wrote 4.5K bytes:

On Sun, 2021-03-21 at 22:56 +0100, Andreas Puls wrote:

I've created now a patch that just replaces in the json export
contact
with server_contact and Total with numkeys.
https://github.com/apuls/hockeypuck/commit/34fbdfcf73b60e6001f3770b86d8750d1c8b5385

Great, thanks! I just merged this. Now my Hockeypuck server appears in
the statistics.

In my hockeypuck configuration i've set Version to 1.1.6+ and
Software
to SKS

Hockeypuck is blacklisted in the sks-keyservers.net code, because it
was not good enough to be incorporated into the pool when Kristian
wrote the code. Now, it seems to be in the same ballpark as SKS.

Asking Kristian to remove the Hockeypuck ban resulted in him explaining
that he does not plan to change the code or accept changes; instead, we
should set up our own fork of his code.

I think this leaves us with the following ways to progress:

a) We leave it as is, Hockeypuck is fine, but just not in the pool.
b) We create a second pool, where Hockeypuck is acceptable (and
probably SKS as well).
c) We agree that Hockeypuck lying to be SKS is accepted in the pool,
and maybe even recommended.

I would favor (c), plus keeping the version number in the 2.x range, so
that experts still can tell the difference.

Opinions?
-Marcel

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature