Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> ok, of course you have priority here, but i don't think we're actually
> disagreeing :)
Good!
> The "simple, generic mechanism" you describe *is* key
> manangement as far as i'm concerned, and i think it's an excellent
> step.
OK. I remember the context as be
On 06/28/2013 10:11 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Another complication is that keys will probably be attached to users, but
> users have relationships with list across the entire Mailman installation. So
> if it were list owners that were responsible for key management, how does that
> cross list bou
On 06/28/2013 12:03 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
>
> > I think Abhilash's question above is a really important question,
>
> It is.
>
> > and one that really should be addressed by this GSoC project.
>
> Vetoed (I'm the mentor). Abhilash is welcome to work on
All great questions. Let me just add this.
On Jun 28, 2013, at 01:03 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>There does need to be a way for list owners to take complete control of key
>management, and there does need to be convenience in management. I think
>that the "key signed by list-owner's list-k
