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

Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.



On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:47:54PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:06:22 +0200
> David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl> wrote:
> > I know that, :-) However, Steve was telling how much time he invested in
> > manually downloading and checking keys because of problems. I was
> > responding to that.
> 
>     Of course I am going to take a few steps.  I have a vested interest in
> communicating with Manoj.  Erm, sorry Manoj, I've never gotten a personal
> pronoun to fit so here goes with a he.  If I'm wrong I apologize now.  He's
> consistently been helpful on this list with Debian and while I have never
> personally had a reply from him on any of my problems his messages have always
> been informative to read.  He's one of the names I've picked out of the crowd
> to listen to when it comes to matters Debian and Linux because I know from
> past experience he's done his homework.  As such me having a key which results
> in a bad signature from him causes me some concern because I want that portion
> of the mechanism to work seamlessly.  Not only for my own edification but for
> others, as well.
> 
>    On the other hand if it were Alan's PGP key (if he ever had the sense to
> sign anything) I'd just delete it without comment because he has proven
> himself a pig-headed ignorant fool time and again here and in Devel over the
> past week.  I don't have a vested interest in communicating with him at all.

;-)

> 
>    However that vested interest doesn't spill into having to jump through C-R
> hoops to tell Manoj that something is wrong with that signature.  I'm willing
> to manually verify the keys I have against the keys listed in his signature
> because I don't want to fire off a message to him and waste his time replying
> "Well, are you using the correct keys?"  That would be rude of me to not have
> double-checked my end before sending it to him.  By the same token it would be
> rude of him to turn away someone who is informing him of a potential problem
> in either his configuration or the keys that are currently present on the
> publicly available keyservers.  I've already gone through the effort of
> verifying it wasn't my end, why should I then have to go through the added
> effort of verifying I am who I say I am when I am doing something out of
> courtesy.  A *lot* of the email I send out is of that nature and it piles up
> right fast.  No thanks.  It is not worth it.

Point taken.

David



Reply to: