Preserving public keyserver network (Re: Which keyserver)

[Stefan Claas]

I can only speak for myself and see that when it comes to SKS that there can
be no consensus achieved between privacy loving EU citizens and (US
based) SKS operators, while Mailvelope and Hagrid respect the users wishes.

With that being said I am out and better let Mr Barr and Mr de Kerchove decide
what the SKS future will bring.

Last but not least I no longer need public SKS key servers.

Best regards
Stefan




On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:55 PM Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
>
> Am Samstag 19 September 2020 23:34:32 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> > I stand by my points that hockeypuck can solve the issues
>
> To me
> it makes sense to preserve a decentalised network of public keyservers [1].
>
> In my post
>  Preserving non-central and privacy with a "permission recording keyserver"
>     [Reiter 2019-07 a]
>  https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2019-July/034399.html
> there is a concept allowing for compatibility with strong privacy laws.
>
> Some ideas how we could conceptually preserve third party
> signature information on public servers:
>   Preserving third party signatures distribution [Reiter 2019-07 b]
>   https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2019-July/034394.html
>
> So yes, I also believe that improvements to hockeypuck or a fresh
> implementation could step by step get the public keyserver network up again.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Bernhard
> ps.: Because I believe funding more qualified dev time is part of the
> solution: You can become a sponsor for hockeypuck development, see
>   https://github.com/sponsors/cmars
> (my company Intevation is one, we also gave a small donation to KF Web running
>  https://sks-keyservers.net/).
>
>
> [1]
>   Web of Trust's usefulness [Reiter 2019-07 c]
>   https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2019-July/034412.html
>
>   | as additional source of trust and history.
>
>   | Abandoning the web of trust common infrastructure works against usage
>   | models where there is anonymous usage, several identities, non-email use
>   | and offline usage. All those maybe not the majority case, they may even be
>   | niche models, but I think they are important to add diversity and
>   | resiliance against manipulations of mainstream players.
>    (spelling improved)
>
> --
> www.intevation.de/~bernhard   +49 541 33 508 3-3
> Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
> Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users