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

Re: [patch]: NM page update request (GPG)



On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:04:45PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-10-27 at 10:26, Osamu Aoki wrote:
...
> > -gpg --send-key --keyserver germany.keyserver.net  yourkeyid
> > +for xx in us es cz de dk uk ch; \
> > +gpg --send-key --keyserver wwwkeys.$xx.pgp.net yourkeyid
> >  </pre>
> 
> Although this is probably just meant to indicate that there is more than
> one keyserver: please don't put it into documentation as such. The load
> on the key server network due to duplicate updates is considerable, I
> hear.
Yes sort of.  Cut&pasted and over erased (no do/done)

See my other post in a new thread.  I addressed it already.  

After thinking about it, even better way is to ask user to check
available host himself.  But it does not work well now :-(

nospam@goofy:nospam$ host pgp.net|grep wwwkeys
pgp.net has no A record (Authoritative answer)
nospam@goofy:nospam$ host -l pgp.net|grep wwwkeys
wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net.     PTR     horowitz.surfnet.nl.
wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net.     A       194.171.167.2
wwwkeys.pl.pgp.net.     A       193.219.28.2
wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net.     A       212.55.198.213
 !!! keys.de.pgp.net MX host math.uni-paderborn.de is not canonical
 !!! keys.uni-paderborn.de.pgp.net MX host math.uni-paderborn.de is not canonical
wwwkeys.de.pgp.net.     A       193.174.13.72
wwwkeys.dk.pgp.net.     A       130.226.106.11
wwwkeys.cz.pgp.net.     A       193.165.192.80
 *** incomplete TXT record for wwwkeys.es.pgp.net, offset 8161

Is this because recent root DNS server attack?  It has been like this from
yeasterday for sure.
-- 
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
        Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>   Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
 .''`.  Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
 : :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
 `. `'  "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract



Reply to: