removing the secmem warning
Mon Jan 7 20:21:01 2002
but is unsecured memory a risk? If it is worth warning about then it=
should be warned about. Just because they are clueless newbies doesn=
mean they should be coddled to. A presumption of security is worse t=
--On Monday, January 07, 2002 7:37 PM +0100 "Janusz A. Urbanowicz"=
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:29:54PM -0500, Frank Tobin wrote:
>> I'd like to question the need for the secmem warning. Do you actu=
>> think it is useful? I am coming to the conclusion that it is only
>> causing confusion among users. As the GnuPG users crowd widens, w=
>> only going to see more of the same issue of people asking "what is=
>> It's not the asking that is the problem; it is a symptom of many u=
>> being confused, many that *aren't posting* and think there is a pr=
>> with their GnuPG. FAQ's don't help unless they are integrated wit=
>> software (GnuPG's FAQ isn't). manpages help a bit, but they are
>> reference manuals, not help systems.
>> Hence, I suggest that by default, there no secmem warning, and tha=
>> should be an alternate option "secmem warning" which turns it on.
>> What sayeth you?
> I'd say that instead of messing with commandline options, there sho=
> no-secmem-warning in g10/options.skel thus making it default
> Gnupg-users mailing list
IS Manager, Technical Services
Durham, NC US