On 2018-10-30 19:08:32, intrigeri wrote:
[...]
>> Instead, I've started thinking about what a parcimonie rewrite would
>> look like, one that would *not* depend on dirmngr (or, in fact, any
>> specific OpenPGP implementation). If you permit, I would like to use
>> this space to brainstorm such a
Hi!
Antoine Beaupré:
> I know this is not Parcimonie's fault. It's gnupg's fault or, more
> precisely, dirmngr's, but it seems difficult to change things over
> there: this would require rewriting dirmngr's network routines
… at least so they're network-status aware and don't treat "my system
is
> 4. This actually parses the packet as well and this is where things get
> a little more complicated: what's an acceptable response from a
> keyserver? This is another thing that's delegated to GnuPG right
> now, but it would be interesting to formalize this and (self-?)
>
On 2017-01-10 18:28:59, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Tue 2017-01-10 14:15:43 -0500, Antoine Beaupre wrote:
>> As things stand now, I see no choice but to stop using parcimonie, which
>> means:
>>
>> 1. i will not update my keyring in a timely manner anymore, or;
>> 2. i will reveal my keyring
4 matches
Mail list logo
