[OT] New keyserver
V. Alex Brennen
vab at cryptnet.net
Tue Sep 17 23:37:02 CEST 2002
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> 4. Is a new keyserver really what folks around would like to see? Is
> anybody more like "It's my baby, go away and do something else?" Or
> should we take current pksd and send patches as long as it's not 100%
> what's needed?
> *Please* comment on this!
Well, CKS has most of the features I think you're looking for already
implemented. It uses postgres, and has the beginnings of database
abstraction so that it can go against Berkeley db, or even oracle.
It seems a shame to re-duplicate all of that work. Progress on CKS
has been slow lately, but I haven't gotten any patches. If
you where to put time into CKS, we'd be able to get a powerful
stable keyserver faster. And we could refocus the duplicated
efforts on new features like respecting the 'no-modify' flag.
If there is something you don't like about CKS that is preventing
you from working on it, please let me know and I will most likely
be willing to change it. I haven't rejected any patches submitted
by other yet. If other people are willing to get very involved,
I'll set up CVS on my server for the project.
I am using other GPL'd code (from gpg) in the project, so I can't
change the license unless we reimplement a number of things.
I do have someone who has offered to help me port the CKS to
More information about the Gnupg-devel