-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi
On Friday 18 June 2010 at 8:42:39 PM, in <mid:[email protected]>, David Shaw wrote: > The danger here is that it might take a long time > (minutes+) to realize that the keyserver and/or network > wasn't going to cooperate. This could seriously slow > down many GPG operations. And a short timeout of a few seconds could result in updates/revocations being missed. Maybe keys with failed updates could be tagged, and an option introduced to update all keys carrying that tag? - -- Best regards MFPA mailto:[email protected] Never trust a dog with orange eyebrows -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBTByvGaipC46tDG5pAQrlIAQAmlEI8rGn3bkARDExkWbtuEKzCQrRTsRc iqO/wkbc82JRq2uNdlZ7VSThLF3WKrVfB0ZXRI4p4OLvrC1m1YG/8GNdtdU+WWDQ ROhzxTIMCeXsC9eTUr2dDf0pzUzpeRS0w3MRenjVj+Tb8zuxfbz6pm94eNrTPJSC j5i/9+v9GGc= =IgiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
