Remove public key from keyserver (was: Hide UID From Public Key Server By Poison Your Key?)

Stefan Claas stefan.claas at
Mon Jan 15 17:39:54 CET 2018

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 17:14:40 +0100, Jason Lawrence wrote:
> > That said I guess ideas like this have already
> > likely been discussed before?  
> Good luck with that, the similar discussing has
> been hold years and nothing ever changed. Last
> time I checked, a discussing in 2005 was labeled
> as "Remove public key from keyserver No.74"
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 at 4:14 PM
> From: "Leo Gaspard" <leo at>
> To: gnupg-users at
> Subject: Remove public key from keyserver (was: Re: Hide UID From
> Public Key Server By Poison Your Key?) On 01/15/2018 08:13 AM, Robert
> J. Hansen wrote:>> Since you can never remove
> >> anything from the public key server, You are
> >> wondering if you can add something to it -- for
> >> example, add another 100 of UIDs with other
> >> people's real name and emails so people can not
> >> find out which one is yours, and append another
> >> 100 of digital signature so people get tired
> >> before figure out which one is from valid user.  
> >
> > I rarely use language like this, but this time I think it's
> > warranted:
> >
> > This is a total dick move. Don't do this. You'll make yourself a lot
> > of enemies, and if you pick the wrong real names and emails, some of
> > those people are pretty damn good at figuring out what's going on.
> >
> > Don't put real names and emails belonging to other people on your
> > cert. It's *rude*. If someone goes looking for "Robert J. Hansen
> > <rjh at>" I want them to see one cert is newest and I
> > want them to use that one. If you go about putting my name and
> > email address on your cert, I'm going to get cross.
> >
> > Again: this is a total dick move. Don't do this.  
> That said, it raises the interesting question of revocation of data on
> keyservers (and the associated legal issues in operating keyservers,
> as the operator is supposed to comply with requests to remove
> personally-identifiable information from it).
> I was just thinking, would it be possible to have a tag (a UID with
> special meaning, like “please-remove-me at”?) for
> which the signature would be verified by the keyserver, and that
> would cause it to drop everything from its storage apart from this
> tag? This way the “please remove me” tag would just naturally
> propagate across keyservers, and all up-to-date-enough keyservers
> will drop all the data associated with the key except the tag and the
> master public key (basically, the strict minimum to check the said
> tag).
> That said I guess ideas like this have already
> l been
> discussed before?

Maybe we need (a court) case were a PGP user requests the removal
of his / her keys until the operators and code maintainers wake up?

Or PGP users simply forget those old fashioned geek key servers
and use modern solutions like for example.



More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list