removing the secmem warning

Owen Blacker
Fri Jan 11 14:19:01 2002

Hash: SHA1

Werner Koch wrote (2002-01-08 T 20:11 +0100):
> > *not* pop into users' head to go to the website to check a FAQ.  They
> > expect programs to be self-explaining as much as possible.  Explictly
> > giving URL in warning is a great way to go.
> Okay. I do so for this warning.  Okay?

I think (as I mentioned earlier) that would be a great idea.  Newbie's
aren't likely to think of looking in an FAQ, they're more likely just to
read it, go "Huh?" and then worry why it's not worked right (when, in
fact, it has).

Imho, the best suggestion was from Ricardo Signes in

Whether or not other messages, warnings and errors need explaining, is
another matter entirely.  I'd say that, on the whole, they don't.

> > Sorry Werner, but you haven't been a 'user' for a long time.
> ;-)


I'd say that's probably the case for most people on this list, tbh...

O x
- -- 
Owen Blacker | Senior Software Developer and InfoSecurity Consultant
See -- more about my PGP keys
Sig  0xb48e805e | 0e31 ac2a 4ff2 62a0 89da  ddef 4223 99a6 b48e 805e
- --
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see