November 2003 - clo-devel - mailman3.common-lisp.net

Re: [clo-devel] Re: [lists] Re: Re: Payment Past Due, account
by Erik Enge 13 Nov '03

13 Nov '03

Ivan Boldyrev <boldyrev+nospam(a)cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes: > Spamassassin now supports bayesian filtering too. I use that at work but I don't find it to be terribly helpful. Plenty spam still come through. > Ah!.. I read list with Gmane newsgate... That is the downside, yes. However, if people who do post are not subscribed to this list I promise to be quick and add a filter to let them through. Of course, you can subscribe to the list and turn of delivery and then you can post freely. Erik.

2 1

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 12 Nov '03

12 Nov '03

Anthony Ventimiglia <anthony(a)ventimiglia.org> writes: > Sounds great, how will we handle signing of those of us that are > already members ? So far I have just asked that you upload your keys to your home directories. Once most/all have done that (only 25% or so have done this so far) I will send an encrypted/signed mail to your email account and expect you to decrypt and send it back to me. Not perfect but I can't think of a better way now that we are in this situation. Erik.

4 6

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Payment Past Due, account
by Erik Enge 12 Nov '03

12 Nov '03

"Alvaro Miles" <qnhfla17ln(a)yahoo.com> writes: > [snip spam] Ok, that's not fun. Our options: a) install spamassassin in which case it doesn't work very well and we'll still get spam every now and then, b) just let it keep pouring in, or b) close the list to non-subscribed traffic. What do you think? Erik.

4 3

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 11 Nov '03

11 Nov '03

Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> writes: > which means that _i'll_ trust common-lisp.net's key, but i was > wondering about people who aren't developers on common-lisp.net. It's my understanding that here's where the "web of trust" is supposed to help. If common-lisp.net verifies plenty keys, then those keys verify it, then prehaps the chances of you knowing someone who has verified it (directly on indirectly) are growing by each developer added to common-lisp.net. Are there any other ways of doing it? Since you now only have one key you must trust it should be easier to find out if it has been hijacked. You have all of common-lisp.net you could call on the phone to verify the key, you could send emails, you could stop by #lisp. None of these are absolutes but I could think they help? Erik.

1 0

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 11 Nov '03

11 Nov '03

Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> writes: > ok, so this "guarntees" that the key belongs to whevere has access to > that account (which is good), but how do you get people to trust > common-lisp.net's key? am i missing something simple? I'm guessing that when you send me your public key to register for a project and I reply with your password in an encrypted email (signed with the common-lisp.net key), you import the common-lisp.net key and sign it and then use it to verify the keyring whenever you need to. Does that sound like a plan? We should also publish it's fingerprint on the website. Erik.

3 2

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 11 Nov '03

11 Nov '03

Mario Mommer <mommer(a)igpm.rwth-aachen.de> writes: > Some redundancy would certainly be good. In case something bad happens > we would have to hack your box to run the site, btw. Good point. I will tell you and Nikodemus the root password plus the passphrase for the common-lisp.net private key (once I've created it). Should we also perhaps distribute a key-revocation certificate for the common-lisp.net key just in case it gets out in the wild? Erik.

2 1

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 11 Nov '03

11 Nov '03

Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus(a)random-state.net> writes: > Need To Know Basis, of course. As long as you're willing to shoulder > the signing, no-one else needs to know. If you think you need help, > then someone else as well. I don't think I need help but if I get hit by the bus you're out of luck. I think perhaps telling a couple of you will be appropriate. How's this for the website: We want users and developers who download software from this site to have a way of verifying that what they just downloaded is indeed what the author uploaded and that the author who uploaded the software indeed is the author they think he is. This will help in preventing trojaned software to spread. For the user to verify a software package (usually a tarball or a zip file), the author will need to sign said package use his <a href="http://www.gnupg.org/">GPG</a> (or <a href="http://www.pgp.com/>PGP</a> or similar technology) private key. (For details on how to do this, check out the GnuPG site, for example, which has several howto's and other useful documents.) Once the package has been signed, the user can then download the package pluss the author's public key and verify that the public key at hand signed the package he or she just downloaded. The weak link is of course that the user doesn't know if the public key is the author's or not. Here's where our signing policy comes into play. When developers apply for a project at common-lisp.net they receive their passwords encrypted (by mail) and if they successfully decrypt and answer the email, their public key will be signed by the common-lisp.net keymaster. Thus, the users will have a means of verifying that they have the correct key. Poorly worded but does this capture our intent? Erik.

5 4

[clo-devel] Terminated Account
by Billy Fountain 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

1 0

[clo-devel] Re: Payment Past Due, account
by Alvaro Miles 10 Nov '03

10 Nov '03

1 0

Re: [clo-devel] Re: Please upload your public GPG key to common-lisp.net
by Erik Enge 07 Nov '03

07 Nov '03

Kevin Rosenberg <kevin(a)rosenberg.net> writes: > I'd recommmend keymaster(a)cl.net and have a web page which describes > the criteria for a key to be signed by the keymaster key. (I'd reserve > you signing keys with your personal key for those owners with whom you > meet in person and look at their photo id. It looks like this is the best approach. Since I'm not the most experienced with these things around here, I'll ask: do we want the key to just sign (no password) or to sign and encrypt/decrypt (then we need a password, if I understand correctly)? Erik.

3 2