wk at gnupg.org
Thu Feb 17 08:20:25 CET 2005
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:59:04 +0100 (MET), Johan Wevers said:
> That would be a more flexible approach than hardwiring a new hashalgo each
> time the previous one was broken. Perhaps a reason to re-add the 1.0 way
> of adding encryption and hash functions as dynamic loadable modules to the
> main program?
The problem is not the software but the protocol. You can't have
dynamically loadable sections for an RFC. That would contradict the
very reason of having a standard.
More information about the Gnupg-users