linking to biglumber entries (was Re: how to use the gnupg for authenticated logins)

Neil Williams
Sat Aug 9 22:21:02 2003

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: signed data
Content-Disposition: inline

On Saturday 09 Aug 2003 8:11 pm, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 06:55:03PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >
> [BCC'd to biglumber-news]
> To link to a specific key/entry on biglumber (while also publishing its
> fingerprint), use the following form:
> =20

That is accurate.

I thought about that format but look what happens to the URL when it's=20
processed via email:

I used the other method because it was shorter. I appreciate that it isn't =
precise match.=20

I put biglumber in my sig to publicise biglumber really, rather than as a t=
to retrieve my key. (I rotate the last bit of the sig between sites that ha=
my attention at the time - from broadband lobbying, gnupg, slashdot, just=20
whatever I feel like pushing at the time.) Next month it could be another=20
site entirely.

The key itself doesn't use any specialised sub-keys or multiple encryption=
methods, it's a straight default GnuPG key with a few UID's. I haven't had=
any reports of keyservers having problems with it and I keep the keyserver=
copies updated with new signatures. It's not one of those keys that gets=20
corrupted or needs to be retrieved from the more specialised / capable=20

There was a little discussion here about the merits of publishing fingerpri=
in email sigs, and I don't see that the fingerprint in my sig achieves an=20
awful lot. I have a regularly updated page with full details of both my key=
for download at the site. Perhaps it would be better to=20
specify this page directly:

(I doubt that many people use that page to actually import my keys though.)


Neil Williams

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)