WKD & Sequoia
andre at colomb.de
Thu Jan 14 09:35:42 CET 2021
On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why do we
> have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can
> one gain from
> an IMHO very nice WKD checker, Wiktor has created.
Quoting from your own mail:
"As you said this is a draft It should formulated this way IMHO that it
allows the greatest flexibility in a protokoll, to fulfill all use
cases, when it comes to WKD."
Nobody wants to remove any method, as that would reduce flexibility.
The "advanced method" is not more complicated to set up, it's just a
matter of preference really.
> I think I have explained, at least for an expert like you, my set-up
> for 300baud.de, I would use.
I repeat, it's not clear to me yet. But let's stop here and discuss
that when you have the basics up and running.
> As soon as time permits I will do this, even if this cost me
> money I can spend for other things. But I gives me then a better
> overview and I can correct myself while thinking my
> set-up would be equally to GitHub's set-up. In case I get stucked I
> would like to ask you
> for advise. Please note: I will not use the advanced method, I like to
> see if this will work
> with sequoia-pgp and GnuPG.
You don't need to spend money just to prove anything to the ML
subscribers. But when you do try, I offer to help with any problems
coming up. You should not rule out the advanced method yet. Depending
on your setup, it might actually be the easier route if wildcard domains
From: André Colomb <andre at colomb.de>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users