On Apr 28, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 07.02.2012 23:28, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> Mike Doty wrote, On 02/07/2012 04:13 AM: >>> Hi All, >> >>> I have a new keyserver running and would like to peer with other >>> servers. Please add me to your 'membership' file with the >>> following entry and provide your details in return so I can do >>> the same: >> >>> keyserver.uberslacks.com 11370 # Mike Doty 0xA797C7A7 >> >>> Thank you. >> >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> I've added you to the membership file of keys2.kfwebs.net >> keys2.kfwebs.net 11370 # 0x6b0b9508 >> >> > > Hi, > > FYI I've committed some changes to sks-keyservers.net in order to use > the reported Hostname of the SKS keyserver rather than the hostname > listed in any given peer list. One of the reasons for this is the > magnitude of aliases in use resulting in multiple occurrences in the > pool list. >
Your remarks resemble my key servers. Can't be helped, sorry. > Anyhow, since this change, your SKS server will be out of the pool > until a proper FQDN (OK, technically not as there isn't a trailing > dot) hostname is set in the sksconf file. This is currently set to > "services" according to [1, 2], where by i'd expect it to read > "keyserver.uberslacks.com" > Can you state the requirements for a "proper FQDN" name in the context of pool inclusion precisely? Just asking for information on current implementation state: Aliasing is a very hard problem to solve, particularly when IPv4 <-> IPv6 aliasing is also involved. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
