I think its because we don't see pseudospoofing as a "danger" like you do. Personally, I consider it a necessity. I like being able to hide behind an anonymous identity (not that I do, mind you). I don't see pseudospoofing as "constraining". On the contrary, I see it as freeing us.
DAMNIT! will you CYPHERPUNKS stop CONFLATING 1) pseudonymity 2) anonymity 3) pseudoanonymity you jerks CONTINUE to claim that (1) (2) and (3) are EQUIVALENT
No the software isn't mine, but I consider myself it's God Father. Mike Graff (explorer@iastate.edu) and I were talking about this a long time, and he just beat me to learning enough PERL to write the thing. But I'd like to think that the two of us did most all of the design of it. So, in a way, it is my software.
Oh. I see. And you would regulate its use on the Internet. Gosh, that sounds kind of like one of those fascist oppressive restrictions by an outside authority. Something to bludgeon.
And, as I said, it is not the job of the Keyserver to provide any sort of policy. The job of the Keyserver is to distribute keys. Nothing more. Nothing less. The job of identifying True Names is solely a job for Digital Signatures, not a job for the Keyserver.
Call it a Keyserver, or a Digital Signature Server or a Toxic Waste Dump, frankly, I don't care what you call it.
I am a cypherpunk. I don't believe in trusting something on faith alone, but you seem to be asking for that.
you `cypherpunks' have no idea what a true society constitutes. trust is inherent to one. you guys all subscribe to the idea, `nothing is bad if you can get away with it.' `if you can get away with it, you should try it.' we'll see who has the last laugh. HA, HA.