[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[jharris@widomaker.com: Debian/Ubuntu keyring maintainer issues]

----- Forwarded message from Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com> -----

From: Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com>
To: Marco Nenciarini <mnencia@prato.linux.it>, sks-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Jason Harris <jharris@widomaker.com>
Subject: Debian/Ubuntu keyring maintainer issues (was:  Re: [Sks-devel] Sks and mailsync)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at prato.linux.it

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:39:28PM +0200, Marco Nenciarini wrote:

> I think we must help pks network to remain in sync most as possible
> (but without flooding it).

Last I checked, all (active) SKS servers were doing their part except
keyserver.ubuntu.com, which still doesn't send mailsyncs to any
onak/OpenPKSD/pks keyservers:


Also, a Debian keyring:


has the (in)famous problem (w/GPG 1.4.2):

  gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
  gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
  gpg: error reading keyblock: invalid keyring

and can't be (armored and) fed through keyserver(s) with the rest
of the Debian keyrings, as I occasionally do because it always turns
up new data.

Finally, pushing these keyrings through my SKS keyserver just now
resulted in 78 hash updates, meaning that despite ongoing _queries_
from keyring.debian.org (via lwp-trivial/1.41, to subkeys.pgp.net),
nobody is properly pushing these updates _to_ the well-synchronized

IIRC, the same person is responsible for all these issues.

Jason Harris           |  NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
jharris@widomaker.com _|_ web:  http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/
          Got photons?   (TM), (C) 2004

----- End forwarded message -----

|    Marco Nenciarini    | Debian/GNU Linux Developer - Plug Member |
| mnencia@prato.linux.it | http://www.prato.linux.it/~mnencia       |
Key fingerprint = FED9 69C7 9E67 21F5 7D95  5270 6864 730D F095 E5E4

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: