Re: [Sks-devel] 0xd5920e937cc1e39b shows signatures with 0xca57ad7c continuing?

[Robert J. Hansen]

On 6/4/12 4:15 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> Insisting that SKS key servers *never* undertake some reasonable
> policies for sound engineering purposes isn't subject to the number
> of adamant objectors, but rather to sensible discussion.

There's a difference between saying "these signatures should never be
dropped from the servers" (which is my position) and "these signatures
should always be presented to clients" (which is not my position).

If a client explicitly requests for a sanitized certificate, I see no
reason that SKS should not respect that request: but SKS itself needs to
keep track of this data.