From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q38PX-0003Vn-G5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:54:47 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 677C61C120; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.51]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B22DB1C0FF for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 88FDB1CC4 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:51:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from grenadine.localnet (pc59050.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.102.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hua59129) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 828D21C15 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:51:59 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rejecting unsigned commits Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:52:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) References: <4D8C83B5.5040600@gentoo.org> <20110325154348.02faafe5@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110325154348.02faafe5@pomiocik.lan> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4364591.80vdWpnfDJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103251552.11192.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: feb933d65f1b9ccb88f2e53410e92ecf --nextPart4364591.80vdWpnfDJ Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Having said that, for those that just use "keys" for e-mails (most of > > us), it would make more sense to use full blow SSL certs in the long > > run. (Mathematically, same thing. But a cert needs to be signed by a > > CA, and we should ideally maintain a Gentoo CA.) I need to get up to > > speed with the GLEP's pertaining to this. Let's just say I have a > > fair bit of experience in this field. I may be able to offer some > > ideas / suggestions. I would very much like to see this happen. >=20 > How about Gentoo Foundation funding devs a full blown X509 client > certs? Please dont go for the SSL bloat... just my 2ct... =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart4364591.80vdWpnfDJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCgAGBQJNjKwbAAoJEEb+UGWnxTyH5pMP/1KjwSqcdkEgjIGb6DVq2gn+ vAE3eA+YnI/u2neXoAbOotfm0a84+TVWAqZkYwGBzQc0i2X9BGgbZrjbXiWvPl9f d0w3J+UBrBAICB/58NwOfVH4jVYzX+uwEDC7swkhqulXi8Tn/a/8i95G6tOCK51e uDefz6JRxeTw+Rqn5bPVRLxvbEpXi1yTo+bgHVN4QhuhUu13j+DwpvpoE1ggN2dO 7UNrej2jMi7nWvnJdR4osktWNKmUih+9e9IWVGAhI/t2ZejOLi0vMyY8qcleRtuM K02iFGx1Hwd6CKEggU7TPhREbzpcNHc5XyprJSmhbVuRYDMnGGPtVzROpSsIbcMC 9CS/6GQSDroLCZsE3CzJW4QInw73rGDWwRTNAumOBu62ns2rF1Cc04doqDzWUUoN fBkS3CsSaI2q5EbyXKPDWDwJLoE96oqpjlvTXe9+/nckwW2KORETOKToWeKCSQBa +op3E40lBUqrlvdojxiVm9iEXmcUDpDrxTZtMa09DVeTrCALdtxfOth3wHnURRcR +3mjDBMtqSQUBlHD26nRUDkbXGs3payGcdjwGifJVS+LxlcUh/ka8wJ7kQ/fh8JM JQJPcOBXT7+CUFZGdcDhGYHhzP3vshvoStsBD0c/ICndzs9HghslcH7Vg9Omz9Hc 1c4kyav8OSyEdJWfXM0q =AC0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4364591.80vdWpnfDJ--