A question about Camellia

[Faramir]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> Faramir wrote:
>>   Well, you have always said any algo in GPG is safe enough to use...

> First, I've said the algorithms are safe enough to use.  I've never said
> GnuPG's implementation of them is correct and error-free.  There's a
> _big_ difference between saying "3DES is a trusted algorithm" and saying
> "GnuPG correctly implements 3DES."

  Ok, I get the point...

...
> Second, please don't trust a word I say.  Seriously.  I make a ton of
> mistakes every single day.  I might be making one right now.  Do your
> own research, find out facts for yourself.

  Well, I have seen what you have said, and what other users of the list
say, and I form my opinion based on that. Since I don't want to rely on
Wikipedia for information about GPG, I think this list is the best
source of information about GPG I can find. Since I lack the knowledge
to check things by myself, I'll have to rely in what other people think
about security.

> My quibbles are not with GnuPG.  My quibbles are with the OpenPGP spec.
>  I think GnuPG is the best implementation of OpenPGP out there right now.

  Well, I just know about 2 implementations, and I am not going to use
PGP... Anyway, GPG has never crashed in my PC, and considering I use
Windows...

  Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJJeqVQAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA7rsIAJyKE0CSw+bkjHeZW9cAk327
8RAYb3YwLhJR7kq2kgTtckpameYaIwdexXuEOQ4mnWGbP0DUmWRhsOD3mFwPVq/s
hOm49QNAOoH5yxVNuxsLHG1nGu+uCj13pRu0AUmVRh1CHQ+bS0fpgI6zUoI8ZvlQ
8sv+Gmc6vzveuz9gyvEIswJb8cQIelcH4l7fuLxkTbqL72GAWAy411QfadAnaWVc
YkvbOIbjedaWMpqFuHkpErMHwObXDI3KdqGhXRwPnGkI9spCX+I9GfJDhEuXwXUZ
tRmPbdIv+Eh4rvORtErnKpMY+vC4AHPjygCk+cynJUKkSIrYH2d/gNpaCWUxSNk=
=l8Nf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----