Hello,
this is only to report that Thunderbird 78.7.0 is unable to make sense
of the MIME structure of Werner's email and it only visualizes the
mailing list footer as the body of the email.
I don't know if the issue is with Thunderbird or with Werner's MUA,
although I suspect the first.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:35, Daniel Kahn Gillmor said:
> Maybe Werner can clarify what place he'd prefer and we can consolidate
> the issue tracking there.
Please send patches to gnupg-devel or if you need a bug tracker, use
dev.gnupg.org with the wkd tag/project.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
On Fri 2021-01-29 01:20:55 +0100, Ángel wrote:
> Oh, nice. I had only located
> https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/webkey-directory which stops at -08. This
> one has been further updated.
yep, see the thread starting at
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2019-October/062844.html
and
On 2021-01-28 at 17:27 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> I think you can find a git repo that contains org-mode source here:
>
> git clone https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git
>
> it's in the misc/id/openpgp-webkey-service folder, and might require
> a modified version
On 2021-01-28 at 17:27 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> I think you can find a git repo that contains org-mode source here:
>
> git clone https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git
>
> it's in the misc/id/openpgp-webkey-service folder, and might require a
> modified version
On Wed 2021-01-27 22:49:13 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> By the way, is there something like a repository to send and discuss
> pull requests against the WKD draft document? Or is it just
> hand-crafted text edited by the submitter based on suggestions?
I think you can find a git repo that
On 23/01/2021 04.17, Ángel wrote:
>> control. In that case, the unrelated webserver would happily answer the
>> openpgpkey subdomain request, but simply not find the required directory
>> structure, giving a 404. My proposed solution would give the user a
>> chance to still enjoy the WKD direct
On 2021-01-22 at 22:15 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> Restricting to only the 200 OK status code would probably be fine. I
> looked at the other 2xx codes and probably no others would apply to WKD.
> Not quite sure about 228 IM Used (not familiar with RFC 3229).
>
> I tend to disagree regarding
Hi all,
On 21/01/2021 01.29, Ángel wrote:
>> If that does not conclude with a successful HTTP response (e.g.
>> status code 2xx), they MUST fall back to the direct method. If the
>> required sub-domain exists, but other errors occur during the
>> connection, they SHOULD output an error message
On 2021-01-20 at 20:29 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after some more thought I came up with a possible wording to clarify
> the
> fallback behavior. Assuming that an opportunistic approach is
> preferred, so the direct method should be used not only based on the
> existence of
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:21 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
> >
> > > Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> > > implementations.
> >
> > Since 'broken'
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
>
> > Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> > implementations.
>
> Since 'broken' implementations are available and can handle both cases,
> and this is now generally
Hi all,
after some more thought I came up with a possible wording to clarify the
fallback behavior. Assuming that an opportunistic approach is
preferred, so the direct method should be used not only based on the
existence of openpgpkey as a SRV or other record. Here goes:
---SNIP--- (page 3,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
> Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> implementations.
Since 'broken' implementations are available and can handle both cases,
and this is now generally known, people do *not* need to follow a *draft*
and can *happily*
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:31, Stefan Claas said:
> there exists also a direct-method in you current draft, which people like
> to use, when low on budged or which like to avoid, for whatever privacy
If you do some research on the infrastructure of large providers (which
includes talking to them)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Werner Koch wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> It has been mentioned several time here that the use of the openpgpkey
> sub-domain is required to allow implementation of the Web Key Directory
> in browsers. This is a real world use case and pretty important for web
> mailers
Stefan,
It has been mentioned several time here that the use of the openpgpkey
sub-domain is required to allow implementation of the Web Key Directory
in browsers. This is a real world use case and pretty important for web
mailers like protonmail.
I would suggest that you put your energy on a
17 matches
Mail list logo
