Re: 6 million

[Arnold]

On 14-04-2020 21:35, brent s. wrote:
> On 4/14/20 15:17, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> brent s. wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/20 11:00, Stefan Claas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why still focusing on a dead project like SKS and not convining the other
>>>> guys from Mailvelope or Hagrid to add peering capabilities?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do realize one can do both, right?
>>
>> Yes, and I have not seen here from the majority in the past, saying hey lets
>> try out (and switch) or asked the devs.
> 
> We can't switch because the "replacements" lack functionality SKS has.

This kind of response killed many discussions we had in the past on this list 
about
possible solutions for the problems of SKS. We saw the problems coming, sat 
back,
watched while it happened and many have quit. That just makes me wonder who is 
the
troll?

Another good argument to end any remaining discussion was to state that the
proposed solution would not prevent the full one hundred percent of problems. 
So,
we never got to make the first step in hardening SKS to prevent abuse.

These two methods proved to be very effective. If there was one 
multi-personality
party (government?) bringing up these two arguments (sometimes repeatedly), with
the objective to stall SKS development, then they must be laughing out lout, 
about
how easy their job has been.


> Until there is a complete replacement for SKS, SKS will continue to be
> operated.

Without stating the 'must have' requirements, but simply stating 'complete', the
functionality causing the problems can never be removed or changed. Even trying 
to
state the objective of sks-keyservers.net never succeeded, as every operator had
their own objective to operate an SKS server. Therefore, trying to obtain the 
'must
have' requirements is a mission impossible by itself.

Just my 2 cents.

Operate whatever software you like.

Kind regards,
   Arnold