--list-sigs, --check-sigs and --list-keys
jharris at widomaker.com
Wed Feb 2 18:56:50 CET 2005
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:40:55AM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 01:19:25PM +0100, Sascha Kiefer wrote:
> > 2. is there a significant performance difference between --check-sigs
> > and --list-sigs?
> In general --check-sigs is going to be slower as there is more work to
> do. Whether it is significant or not depends on a number of factors.
> In most cases with 1.4.0, it's not even noticable. In some cases
> (with Elgamal signatures and older GnuPG), it's 20-30 minutes slower.
Also, IINM, signature validities are cached in the (writable) keyring(s).
Valid signatures apparently look like this (pgpdump output):
Old: Trust Packet(tag 12)(2 bytes)
Trust - 00 03
NB: If you want to disable this (and other such) caching, use
Jason Harris | NIC: JH329, PGP: This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
jharris at widomaker.com _|_ web: http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/
Got photons? (TM), (C) 2004
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 309 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050202/f98dbae2/attachment.pgp
More information about the Gnupg-users