On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 16:18 -0500, John Clizbe wrote: > C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote: > >> Associated with what? With my key? With the keyserver? > > The email address you used when requesting peers. The email address > > which I will associate with the keyserver you claim to operate when you > > confirm for me that you have physical access to the private key > > corresponding to public key 0x5BB9A53D. > > The email and key which you seem to place such great emphasis on, were only > suggested to be added a few months ago solely as a convenience factor for > contacting a keyserver operator. _Nothing_more_. > > You seem to be placing an enormous amount of unwarranted import on them.
It seems to be a reasonable practice to request a signature using a key associated with the contact information. Most folks requesting peers do this with their request. I understand now that others do not have this policy. In the future, I will not notify the list when I receive a refusal to comply with it. > > > > c...@pki:~$ grep 5BB9A53D /etc/sks/membership > > #keyserver.pki.scientia.net > > 11370#ChrisMitterer<cales...@scientia.net>0x5BB9A53D > > > >> Please tell me once you've got that, so that I can delete it. > > Sorry I failed to confirm receipt previously. Please consider my > > initial response an indication of receipt and review of the document. > > > > Please sign a message using the private key associated with 0x5BB9A53D. > > I will then remove the comment character from > > keyserver.colliertech.org's /etc/sks/membership file and re-start the > > server. Something like the following would be more than adequate ;) > > There is no need to restart the server after editing the membership file. Oh? Thanks. I will keep that in mind. > > $ echo " > > I <your name> do hereby swear under penalty of perjury that I own and have > > exclusive access to the private key corresponding with the public key ending > > in <your pgp id> " | \ > > gpg --digest-algo sha256 --clearsign > > *eyeroll* OYE!!! "Penalty of Perjury"? > > Had you requested such a statement from me at the beginning, I would have most > likely written you off and never bothered helping you iron out your IP config > problems. Aw, man. I didn't *really* request that he sign it that way. I was kidding and trying to lighten the mood, hence the ";)". You would have been right to write me off had I demanded such a thing. A message signed with a key, preferably published in the repository is sufficient. Again, I'm sorry to have put everyone out with my unreasonable peering policy. I will publish my peering policy and reply privately with a link to it in the future to avoid causing list flame. I will not notify the list when I come across what I consider to be questionable practices. I will reduce my reliance on the information provided by potential peers and the keys which they publish.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
