Domain registrars (was Re: signing + mailing lists)
Michael H. Warfield
Thu Sep 20 23:56:02 2001
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:19:38PM -0700, Rich Burroughs wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, John A. Martin wrote:
> > someone besides you will spot a PGP message that does not verify. In
> > my experience the only significant mail based process that has been
> > persistently unable to handle PGP signed mail was the domain
> > registration services at NAI but that problem was easily solved when
Huh? John, do you mean NSI? NAI is Network Associates, associated
with flavors of PGP but not domain registration. NSI is Network Solutions
Inc who use to be THE Internic (after NSF let it go into public hands and
after SRI managed it for years). They implimented the PGP guardian
object which I immediately took advantage of and never had a single
hickup or miss fire even though I've manged several dozen domains
and been, at times, technical contact for over a hundred.
I've never had them be "persistently unable to handle PGP signed
mail" and have had it work every time. Well, every time I used it
> > other registrars became available.
> Any other registrars that use PGP/GnuPG? The others I've seen all do web
> forms, and some don't even use SSL...
Don't know, but, trueth be told, that's why I have had no incentive
to migrate to any of the cheaper spred. PGP guardian objects have worked
perfectly well (and I've screwed up a couple of times and known it was
my fault - OK, OK, I FORGOT to sign the damn thing) to know it works
in the negative sense as well. That's in my minimum set of features
for a registrar.
And I really DON'T like the web interfaces, SSL or not. Tough
as hell to script and automate.
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com
(The Mad Wizard) | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!