On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote: > Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why do > we > have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can > one gain from > an IMHO very nice WKD checker, Wiktor has created.
Quoting from your own mail: "As you said this is a draft It should formulated this way IMHO that it allows the greatest flexibility in a protokoll, to fulfill all use cases, when it comes to WKD." https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2021-January/064645.html Nobody wants to remove any method, as that would reduce flexibility. The "advanced method" is not more complicated to set up, it's just a matter of preference really. > I think I have explained, at least for an expert like you, my set-up > for 300baud.de, I would use. I repeat, it's not clear to me yet. But let's stop here and discuss that when you have the basics up and running. > As soon as time permits I will do this, even if this cost me > money I can spend for other things. But I gives me then a better > overview and I can correct myself while thinking my > set-up would be equally to GitHub's set-up. In case I get stucked I > would like to ask you > for advise. Please note: I will not use the advanced method, I like to > see if this will work > with sequoia-pgp and GnuPG. You don't need to spend money just to prove anything to the ML subscribers. But when you do try, I offer to help with any problems coming up. You should not rule out the advanced method yet. Depending on your setup, it might actually be the easier route if wildcard domains are involved. Kind regards André -- Greetings... From: André Colomb <an...@colomb.de>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
