On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:13 AM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote: > Please accept my sincere apology. I did not mean to offend. I have never > received a refusal to sign a message indicating ownership of a private key > and it raised a red flag. Since there has been no indication from the list > that this was an appropriate step to take, I will avoid publishing such > issues and attempt instead to resolve them privately.
Well as one who was also surprised at your peering policy (although I understood perfectly once you explained), you might try to describe the SKS server peering policy you are obliged to work with up front (and in a accessible web page) just to expedite the explanations. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with your SKS peering policy imho, just it surprised ( at least me) a bit, necessitating an explanation involving some subtle interpretations of what "trust" means. If you add a policy description of YOUR "trust" needs for SKS peering, its obvious (to me anyways) why you wish a signed message. hth just trying for a positive suggestion 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel