On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:17, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
Who controls keys.gnupg.net? Werner? Do you have plans to do any
filtering like this? It seems like it would be useful to have a pool
that rejects hosts that at least admit to running versions with
significant known bugs.
On 04/03/2009 08:01 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:17, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
keys.gnupg.net is pretty new and I configure it manually. I poll the
keyservers every hour or so to see whether they are still responding and
send a mail if they don't response. Everything else
On 03/23/2009 07:05 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
None that I know of. Eventually, such a thing will be necessary, but
it would have to be done via whoever controls the particular keyserver
round-robin.
Or convince the keyserver operators running 1.0.10 to upgrade to 1.1.0
or
On 2009-03-24 at 11:12 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 03/23/2009 07:05 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
Folks may be holding back from upgrading because they don't want to
upgrade their Berkeley DB version to 4.6.
That does sound unpleasant. Who on the list has done this process? Has
anyone
Sorry, this is all explained by me getting all confused with the version
numbers. Ignore my last post (except to point out that a new release needs
to come soon...)
y
2009/3/22 Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
On 03/22/2009 10:29 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
I'm really confused.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 11:38:57PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 03/22/2009 10:29 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
I'm really confused. People have piped in in both directions on this one,
so does someone have the definitive story? Is 1.0.10 the one that behaves
correctly, or 1.0.9?
So
On 03/23/2009 04:02 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:41:50PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
has any thought been
given to requiring members of the keyserver pools to not run that
version of SKS? keys.gnupg.net itself contains several keyservers
running 1.0.10, which
David Shaw wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 07:41:50PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Given that this causes problems for users of gnupg, has any thought been
given to requiring members of the keyserver pools to not run that
version of SKS? keys.gnupg.net itself contains several keyservers
On 03/22/2009 09:02 AM, Kim Minh Kaplan wrote:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
gpg generates an HTTP request like this:
http://$foo:11371/pks/lookup?op=indexoptions=mrsearch=0xD21739E9exact=on
[...]
What is the right way to handle this?
The simplest solution would be to remove the exact=on
On Mar 22, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
This makes me think that what we're seeing is a bug in older
versions of
SKS that could cause serious incompatibilities. The reason i found it
was a report from a user who was having difficulty searching for keys
from the keyservers by
On 03/22/2009 06:41 PM, David Shaw wrote:
The 'exact=on' problem is specific to 1.0.10. It worked properly in 1.0.9.
See: http://www.mail-archive.com/sks-devel@nongnu.org/msg00287.html
Ah, thanks for the pointer, David.
Given that this causes problems for users of gnupg, has any thought
I'm really confused. People have piped in in both directions on this one,
so does someone have the definitive story? Is 1.0.10 the one that behaves
correctly, or 1.0.9?
And yes, we should get a 1.0.11 release out soon. I was waiting for the
IPv6 patch to settle down and for everyone to agree
On 03/22/2009 10:29 PM, Yaron Minsky wrote:
I'm really confused. People have piped in in both directions on this one,
so does someone have the definitive story? Is 1.0.10 the one that behaves
correctly, or 1.0.9?
So far i haven't heard anyone claim that 1.0.10 works correctly. 1.1.0
works
13 matches
Mail list logo
