[OT] New keyserver

Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw at lug-owl.de
Tue Sep 24 12:40:02 CEST 2002

On Mon, 2002-09-23 16:48:22 +0200, disastry at saiknes.lv <disastry at saiknes.lv>
wrote in message <3D8F29B6.ECB9E13 at saiknes.lv>:
> keyserver does not need to sign keys,
> however it would be nice if it could verify signatures, so that it can reject
> userids without valid selfsig.

Seems I don't get the point. What's wrong with UIDs without
self-signatures? Though, they're *not* what you think about them (being
"valid" UIDs), but technically, everybody can attach any UIDs to any
key. ...and GnuPG doesn't trust UIDs without self-signatures, so
everything is okay (from my point of view).

What could be said is that it would be a nice feature to not transmit
UIDs with missing self-sigs, because they're a) not worth anything and
b) probably the result of bad kiddies. Am I wrong here?


   - Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf für
   - einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger
   						Gegen Zensur im Internet
Jan-Benedict Glaw   .   jbglaw at lug-owl.de   .   +49-172-7608481
	 -- New APT-Proxy written in shell script --
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20020924/2e80fa36/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list