Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: andre <andre@liquidprivacy.net>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Subject: Re: Guarantee uniqueness of PGP key
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:56:16 -0500
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
References: <20020520201709.A3F8A80269@pepe.lfcity.org>
	<20020521115442.GA17061@wolff.to>
In-Reply-To: <20020521115442.GA17061@wolff.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20020521115616.C87C780269@pepe.lfcity.org>

Yes, I've decided to relax the unique-ness constraint on the public key.  T=
he=20
email address is still guaranteed unique. And we send out an encrypted=20
verification email that only the person with the private key can decrypt an=
d=20
respond to. Thus, it doesn't really hurt to have multiple people paste in t=
he=20
same pub key.

If I really wanted uniqueness, I think you (and the others who replied) are=
=20
correct that I should be storing the 'fingerprint' in a separate column.

/andre=20=20

On Tuesday 21 May 2002 06:54 am, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 15:17:09 -0500,
>
>   andre <andre@liquidprivacy.net> wrote:
> > The problem is that some PGP keys are over 2713 bytes, and postgres (7.=
2)
> > gives the error:
>
> You might want to rethink your design. You probably want just the RSA or
> DSA public key to be unique. Otherwise you will treat different versions =
of
> what is essentially the same key as being different. (This might be due
> to be signed by a different set of keys.) I suspect that this isn't what
> you want. I think even the craziest people are using keys that should
> be around 1000 bytes. Paranoid people (or those needing very long lived
> public keys) are using ones half that size.