also sprach David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.06.18.0240 +0200]:
> The problem is that the PKS keyserver was not written to handle keys
> with multiple subkeys.
[snip]
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know about subkeys.pgp.net yet.
Moreover, I second the belief that the keyservers must b
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 03:47:01PM +0200, Stefan Kelm wrote:
> David,
>
> > A reasonable question would be "Why don't all the PKS operators
> > replace their server with SKS or something else?". I don't have a
> > good answer to that. It's certainly been asked.[3]
>
> ...and has been answered a
David,
> A reasonable question would be "Why don't all the PKS operators
> replace their server with SKS or something else?". I don't have a
> good answer to that. It's certainly been asked.[3]
...and has been answered a number of times. The thing is (and most people
seem to forget about this
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:42:13 +0200, martin f krafft said:
> an unusable public key. It only seems to work if they use modern
> software and obtain my key from keyserver.kjsl.com:11371 or the
You may also want to use subkeys.pgp.net. These are servers running
software not eating keys.
> - What i
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:42:13PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> My key, 220BC883330C4A75, has multiple encryption subkeys, and it's
> about to get another one on Friday, as my current encryption key
> expires.
>
> A lot of people are reporting that they cannot encrypt to me, due to
> an unusabl
My key, 220BC883330C4A75, has multiple encryption subkeys, and it's
about to get another one on Friday, as my current encryption key
expires.
A lot of people are reporting that they cannot encrypt to me, due to
an unusable public key. It only seems to work if they use modern
software and obtain my
