Unfortunately i got <[email protected]>: host ellsberg.gnupg.com[176.9.119.14] said: 550 [SPF] 217.144.132.164 is not allowed to send mail from sdaoden.eu. (in reply to MAIL FROM command)
which seems a bit square given that i DKIM sign my messages now, and the SPF cannot have anything else but ~all because i speak to people behind forwarders which do not use SRS rewriting, and what is a SPF record of ~all worth, thus i had thrown it away. (Worked for almost two months without problems.) --- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> --- Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 02:13:53 +0200 Author: Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> From: Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> To: Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Specification for Kyber in GnuPG Message-ID: <20240508001353.Kz1gyZ6F@steffen%sdaoden.eu> Mail-Followup-To: Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]> OpenPGP: id=EE19E1C1F2F7054F8D3954D8308964B51883A0DD; url=https://ftp.sdaoden.eu/steffen.asc; preference=signencrypt Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel wrote in <[email protected]>: |On 02.05.24 08:42, Werner Koch via Gnupg-devel wrote: |> Many thanks to Stavros Kousidis, Falko Strenzke, and Aron Wussler for |> their draft on adding PQC to OpenPGP. The algorithms used by LibgrePGP |> are the same except for the fixed info. I took the freedom to remove |> the rationale parts which are not helpful for an implementer and was |> thus able to make the description more concise. | |Hi Werner, | |is my understanding correct, LibrePGP reuses most of the PQC |specification from draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc, and your only concerns are |about the algorithm IDs and the fixed info? | |If that's correct, I think it's exciting that your views are so close to |each other! | |I wonder if the authors of draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc might be willing to |accept these changes, for the sake of a common specification. | |Would you be open to a shared specification for the PQC subkey format? | |Furthermore, as I understand it, the v5 key format and the v6 key format |are very close to each other (thanks a lot to Andrew Gallagher for |enlightening me about this detail). | |I wonder if we could find a way to introduce the specification of a v5 |format subkey (only) into an IETF specification, to allow the |draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc specification to use it. | |Actually, I think it would be better if there was a common |specification, agreed to by both the LibrePGP and IETF groups. How could |such a common specification be defined? Do you have ideas or suggestions? | |I'm dreaming here, but I think it would be great to see a base I wholeheartly agree and would think that nearby a hundred percent of all persons using OpenPGP of whatever kind do, too. (And would be surprised if not.) |specification, that extracts the common denominator of draft-librepgp |and crypto-refresh, and which could be extended to contain the v5 subkey |format. Then, draft-librepgp (and ideally crypto-refresh) could |potentially be rewritten to be incremental specifications on top of the |common denominator spec. --End of <[email protected]> ... -- End forward <20240508001353.Kz1gyZ6F@steffen%sdaoden.eu> --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel
