On 2/6/2019 11:26 AM, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > On 06/02/2019 13:11, Steffen Kaiser wrote: >> Is it meant litterally? The current SKS project is end of life and, >> effectively, we have to look into another direction? Other software, new >> fork with rewrite? > I said "effectively", not literally. And I was in a grumpy mood that > day. But I stand by my point about design flaws not getting the > attention they deserve. You don't need to fork the codebase to make > improvements, but you do need to redesign the protocol to be > abuse-resistant, which is a Very Hard Problem. If we had some consensus > on the way forward it would be a good start.
If only it were open-source software and individuals with the extra time and talent to work on those design flaws were able to do so. Wouldn't that be a great world to live in? _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
