keyserver sending problems
V. Alex Brennen
vab at cryptnet.net
Fri May 4 23:58:01 CEST 2001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Nathan Johnson wrote:
> Which is better to patch? The key server code or GPG?
I think, in this case GnuPG because the break was caused
by the proxy changes Werner did (iobuf). The presentation
of the headers with a blank line in between them is not
compliant with the HTTP spec. HKP is based on (is)
HTTP, so GnuPG should be patched to bring it back into
compliance with the HTTP protocol (rather than patching
all the keyservers).
Once I get version 1.00 of my keyserver out the door,
I'll start working on a binary protocol for keyserver
interaction to replace, or augment, hkp.
I posted version 0.0.1 of the code for the keyserver
I've been working on here the other day. I'm going
to try and have a 0.0.2 out on Monday with a stable
codebase so that I can start accepting patches from
contributors. 0.0.2 will be allot different than
0.0.1 so I'm not accepting patches against 0.0.1.
It would be _wonderful_ if some of the GnuPG
developers would consider helping with the new GPL'd
keyserver. I want to get it done fast so I can work
on lots of other interesting crypto projects! =)
V. Alex Brennen [vab at cryptnet.net]
[ http://www.cryptnet.net/people/vab/ ]
F A R B E Y O N D D R I V E N !
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-devel