Feature Request: More output on signature
dshaw at jabberwocky.com
Mon Aug 2 17:03:04 CEST 2004
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 02:35:42PM -0400, Douglas F. Calvert wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-05-22 at 09:45 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > This release brings development even closer to a good point for 1.4.
> > If there is something that you do not like here, be it a missing
> > feature, a UI choice, or, well, anything, now is the time to speak up.
> > Once 1.3.x becomes the new stable, large changes will be unlikely.
> > While we obviously cannot guarantee that every suggestion will be
> > included, they will all be looked at.
> I would like to see an option that made gpg print out more information
> during signature verifications. When keys are q, m or f trusted I would
> like to be able to discern what the trust path looks like. I am not
> exactly sure what I would want it to look like, this is the hard part.
> Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I'm afraid giving a trust path is not going to be possible for 1.4.
It's far more invasive than I want to get into this close to release.
> Also it would be nice to have gpg notify users if there is a new key
> preference that they should set. I generated my keys pre-MDC I was
> unaware that this feature was added until i started digging around
> in the prefs. This would have been a nice time to educate users on
> MDC and increase the number of keys that had this option set.
The problem here is how does GnuPG tell the difference between a pref
that wasn't set because you generated your key a long time ago, and a
pref you unset on purpose because you didn't want it set.
It might be worth putting something in the release notes to mention
that running an "updpref" is a good idea, but GnuPG itself shouldn't
try and be smarter than the user with prefs.
More information about the Gnupg-devel