Gnupg good for big groups?

[Robert J. Hansen]

On 8/8/2010 3:39 AM, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> True.  In fact over a third of all NETMK messages (14 to be exact) were
> to members who posted fewer than ten messages in that three month period.

This is expected, and it's not specific to PGPNET.  Communication links
that get used tend to be better-maintained than ones that don't: small
problems are discovered and fixed in the natural course of using them.

Compare to a link you don't use for six months -- by the time you need
it, everything has changed and your link totally fails.

It's one of the reasons why any communication channel you plan on
relying on in an emergency should be regularly tested to make sure it
performs the way you expect.




(We are arguably getting pretty far afield from GnuPG, but I believe
this conversation is still germane to GnuPG usage.  If people object,
say the word.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5598 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20100808/c4314525/attachment.bin>