On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 01:12:10AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, David Shaw wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 12:32:39AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder if my key is too large for SKS to like: > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gpg --send 94c09c7f > > > > gpg: sending key 94C09C7F to hkp server keyserver.noreply.org > > > > gpgkeys: HTTP post error 22: url returned error 500 > > > > gpgkeys: no KEY 94c09c7f END found > > > > gpg: keyserver internal error > > > > gpg: keyserver send failed: keyserver error > > > > > > > > If so, maybe we could patch SKS to allow larger keys? > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > Actually this appears to be a GnuPG problem? > > > > Version? At least for the recent code, It's very hard to see how you > > got that error. The code just doesn't flow that way. > > gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.4-cvs, looks like a snapshot built around April 5th, > probably r4114. > > I don't see the problem on a different host with what is quite likely > r4189.
There are no meaningful changes in gpgkeys_hkp between those two revisions. Can you reproduce this with --keyserver-options "use-temp-files keep-temp-files" and send me the temp file? David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
