--list-sigs, --check-sigs and --list-keys
dshaw at jabberwocky.com
Wed Feb 2 22:55:48 CET 2005
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:56:50PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote:
> 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).
That's why in most cases with 1.4.0 it's not even noticable. Every
time you check your trustdb, uncached signatures are cached.
More information about the Gnupg-users