Confirmation for cached passphrases useful?
faramir.cl at gmail.com
Mon Oct 18 02:52:37 CEST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users