Using ELG sign and encrypt key

David T-G
Fri Jun 7 15:42:02 2002

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David, et al --

=2E..and then David Pic?n ?lvarez said...
% At the risk of seeming stubborn:


% > > When I created my new gpg key, I decided to use ElGamal sign and encr=
% > > key, because it permits having a 4096 signature key, and I thought th=
% > They won't work with PGP, signing is very slow and there are probably
% 2) On slowness, since I use signing interactively, it doesn't seem to be =
% issue right now. I don't notice the slowness, to tell the truth.

I used to have a 4k key but didn't do it again when creating my current
key because I did.  It wasn't so slow to sign, but it was a pig to
verify.  Your messages are the same; it takes mutt about seven seconds to
open and verify one of your messages, while it takes just under a second
(as well as I can tell) to open, say, mine with my current key.  Have you
tried reading your own messages to see how your performance looks?

I wasn't as much worried about my correspondents (since I'm on a box with
two Celeron-400s, many folks had beefier hardware than I, and besides
they're not at my keyboard tapping their feet :-) but really didn't like
reading my own messages, so I went back to a 2k key for this round.

HTH & HAND (& if you create a new key I won't complain ;-)

David T-G                      * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work)    Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)