-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
Well, the fundamental point you haven't mentioned here is that the PGP keyserver network, past and present, is entirely a volunteer-based service.
as are almost all the dns root servers. and, despite occasional hysterical whining on this list, they provide a serious production service on which we are all successfully betting our asses.
There is a lot more riding on the root servers. People like me think that PGP keyservers are absolutely essential, but there are far more people that would be affected if the root servers were as unreliable as the keyservers.
this is not to say that i do not deeply appreciate the current volunteer efforts. but, as we rely more and more on pgp, we need a serious production quality service.
I definately agree.
i wonder if a few of the large providers might be able to field a production quality distributed service. or help the current volunteers to do so.
I would certainly be willing to corrdinate such an effort, if there is interest.
plan for a few orders of magnitude.
Yes, I know. But my point was that we're at over 1M keys right now, and won't make 10M, (let alone 100M or 1B) I don't think, unless things change.
how can providers help? and now, not in the vague future.
Immediately? Multiple providers could set up a series of servers that all syncronize with each other in a load-balanced system where they all share the same hostname, so that the user doesn't have to search for a working server when one goes down. (That's the short term solution in a nutshell. Interested parties can contact me about this for more info). __ L. Sassaman System Administrator | "Everything looks bad Technology Consultant | if you remember it." icq.. 10735603 | pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Homer Simpson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred. iD8DBQE5WEgJPYrxsgmsCmoRAk+5AKCD5eZR/Ib0vU0SR8RrEGi0S36mCQCgpEUt M/XoZxinApiOWgpi+XIkUFY= =q4mn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----