Confirmation for cached passphrases useful?

[Faramir]

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

El 15-10-2010 20:29, Jameson Rollins escribió:
....
> No, I was just curious why, if you were an ssh-agent user, you would be
> ok with the implementation there but not for gpg-agent.  If you're not
> an ssh-agent user then you have nothing to get defensive about.

  Lets say I buy a house, and the house has elephant proof fences. Since
it didn't made the price too expensive, I'm ok with that. And since it
doesn't bother me, I don't need to remove them. But now I buy another
house, and somebody says "hey, this house lack of elephant proof fences,
will you add them?". My answer would be "no, there are not elephants in
this country, so there is no need to spend money and time building
something I don't need".

  If a developer already added a feature to some software, well, there
is no need to complain. The thing is: should GnuPG developers spend time
in adding a new feature? I'm not a developer, so whatever they chose is
ok for me, as long as they don't break anything.

  Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJMu5pVAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA4rUH/3V9SvwiFBmdYQQFpBIkFyAp
EROf8aBPumPszHPavAR8vuize+58Vx1wrtjfEwNVYnUuAtNTAxQXrcP70x9Rrqj5
AItQyCo++3F32gLdMzO+4BKIVa5PlmOLi7eqkShCdGp7pHHWWUZLEnSDRb1LYvj4
NsgHMibDNkMNah6ntXKVvBg1omk9OeEanr1tsLv/15DfAVzEaFGhOo68Nr1+4R6A
ZvGFn2RgHlaFEfIGCwe8Dy8C1/FpWcU68UcrJwlACZtiwpqp4ip623m5Fgro3rcG
1P81FrCDTaLLSbEMxAbimu20hTGm6ZX3j2FoLip7mP4Yf8IGP43kLJlFARclhWc=
=q4c7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----