On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 18:57 +0100, holger krekel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 17:57 +0100, Volker Birk wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:27:14PM +0100, Andy Mueller-Maguhn wrote: > > > I do roughly recal that such a verification process has been discussed for > > > the SKS keyservers at one of the pgp-summit before, but i wonder what > > > happened to the idea. However, if it that is “good enough” to be compliant > > > with the GDPR i can´t say, but this sounds like a good idea in any case. > > > > I'm not of the opinion that key servers are a good idea at all. It's > > a pity that people still follow this wrong idea. > > I happen to be similarly skeptical of key servers and don't want > to spend much effort with helping to evolve the concept. > I might be wrong, though, and there are good uses that solve real > security issues for people. When i say "real security issues" > i mean those who otherwise are oppressed and imprisoned for real, > not in some potentiality. It's about real outcomes for people > and not some security ideal. > > Some folks certainly think key servers are useful and i respect them. > And also, who knows, i might be missing something. I admit that > so far the arguments pro key servers (eg revocation) have > not made me lean more towards going for it.
Just to be clear, i am refering to key server usage for e2e email. For supporting Debian and similar other ecosystems key servers have served quite well as far as i understand. And then, reconciling key servers with the GDPR for public signing and verification infrastructure seems like a good idea (including revocation i guess). holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel