Re: [Sks-devel] new keyserver online

[Jeff Johnson]

On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:13 AM, C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP wrote:
> Please accept my sincere apology.  I did not mean to offend.  I have never 
> received a refusal to sign a message indicating ownership of a private key 
> and it raised a red flag.  Since there has been no indication from the list 
> that this was an appropriate step to take, I will avoid publishing such 
> issues and attempt instead to resolve them privately.

Well as one who was also surprised at your peering policy (although
I understood perfectly once you explained), you might try
to describe the SKS server peering policy you are obliged to
work with up front (and in a accessible web page) just to expedite
the explanations.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with your SKS peering policy imho, just
it surprised ( at least me) a bit, necessitating an explanation involving
some subtle interpretations of what "trust" means.

If you add a policy description of YOUR "trust" needs for SKS peering, its 
obvious
(to me anyways) why you wish a signed message.

hth just trying for a positive suggestion

73 de Jeff