Dashamir Hoxha dashohoxha at gmail.com
Sat Mar 26 04:55:59 CET 2016

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:50 PM, listo factor <listofactor at mail.ru> wrote:
> To perform tasks that GPG is designed to accomplish in a safe manner
> is *very, very hard*, and even the best documentation could not change
> that fact. The efforts which concentrate on making it easy might
> indeed increase the number of people that use it, but at the expense
> of their safety. That, to me, appears to be behind a lot of projects
> similar to the one discussed here.

So, maybe they will be safer if they don't use GPG at all? No efforts to
facilitate GPG should be made because this will undermine the security of
the users? GPG is only for the super-experts?
I don't get this logic. I beleive that in certain conditions and under
certain assumptions, only a small subset of GPG is needed. The rest can
just not be used or have reasonable defaults. I beleive that simplification
is possible and useful.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160326/76a5ab4b/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list