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 >> running 1.0.10, which misbehave in response to standard gpg searches by >> keyid. > > 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 1.1.1 (if it's released by then)
Folks may be holding back from upgrading because they don't want to
upgrade their Berkeley DB version to 4.6.
> The odd thing here is that version has been broken for at least 2
> years, as I reported the problem in 2006. Did nobody else notice, or
> are there still a bunch of 1.0.9 SKSes out there?
2-3 out of 40+ running 1.0.9
~1/4 of the 40-something running 1.0.10
All the others are running 1.1.0.
--
John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org
You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or
mailto:pgp-public-k...@gingerbear.net?subject=help
Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?"
A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
