|
From: | C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP |
Subject: | Re: [Sks-devel] new keyserver online |
Date: | Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:32:24 -0700 |
On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:13 AM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote: > Please accept my sincere apology. I did not mean to offend. I have never received a refusal to sign a message indicating ownership of a private key and it raised a red flag. Since there has been no indication from the list that this was an appropriate step to take, I will avoid publishing such issues and attempt instead to resolve them privately. Well as one who was also surprised at your peering policy (although I understood perfectly once you explained), you might try to describe the SKS server peering policy you are obliged to work with up front (and in a accessible web page) just to expedite the explanations.
Thank you for the recommendation. I have begun such a policy here. Revision history is being kept in git, and I'd be happy to publish it if there is interest.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with your SKS peering policy imho, just it surprised ( at least me) a bit, necessitating an explanation involving some subtle interpretations of what "trust" means.
Thank you.
If you add a policy description of YOUR "trust" needs for SKS peering, its obvious (to me anyways) why you wish a signed message.
Great. I will try to explain this in the document.
hth just trying for a positive suggestion 73 de Jeff
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |