comment and version fields. [Long]

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Wed Apr 4 00:20:29 CEST 2007

Hash: SHA512

Remco Post wrote:
> Now, this is true for you and me. Now, take my secretary as an example.
> She has not installed any pgp/gpg aware software, nor is she an
> experienced user of cryptographic tools. Do you expect her to correctly
> interpret these hints?


I'm sorry, at this point I can't take this discussion seriously.
Calling these things "hints" is like saying "a red octagonal road sign
with the word STOP written on it is a hint that you should decrease your
velocity to zero".  While true, nobody would ever say it.  Nor would
anyone say that it's the car's fault you drove through a stop sign
because you couldn't be bothered to learn the semantics associated with
the stop sign.

> So now it's blame somebody else?

No.  This is "go talk to the correct people".  This is not a GnuPG issue.

> volunteering to start convincing the people in Redmont? In the mean
> time, maybe it's easier to think about what the protocol is intended to
> do and conclude that maybe a comment field is not very useful, and could
> be counterproductive.

If that's what you want to do, then join the IETF OpenPGP working group
and start talking about it there.  Talking about it here will not change
a blessed thing.  Talking about it there might actually achieve something.

The IETF OpenPGP WG and the various mailing lists for the various MUAs
are the right place to be discussing this issue.  Not here.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list