Break backwards compatibility

Jochen Schüttler JSchuettler at
Mon May 21 05:56:04 CEST 2018

And that is my opinion, too.

Some people have the necessity to decrypt old data, so there should be a
separate tool for them to do exactly that. It's the only way to start
off fresh.

But I believe many people shouting out against the developers really
have no such reason. They are described very well with the word "hater"
and can be disregarded.

Am 21.05.2018 um 05:19 schrieb Mark Rousell:
> On 21/05/2018 02:12, Jochen Schüttler wrote:
>> I'm all for breaking backwards compatibility.
>> What's the worst the haters can do? Turn their back on GnuPG? Shout out
>> really loud once more? I think they should get a life!
> I rather suspect they do have a life supporting scenarios that they
> cannot change that require legacy-decryption capability.
> If legacy-decryption was removed entirely from current versions of GnuPG
> then they would simply have to continue using old, unsupported, and
> potentially vulnerable versions. I do not think it is reasonable to just
> cut them off entirely.
> As Philipp Klaus Krause [1] and Dirk Gottschalk [2] pointed out above,
> breaking backward compatibility does not have to be (and should not be
> in my opinion) absolute. The ability to decrypt old, legacy-encrypted
> data is, like it or not, still present in the real world and it is
> therefore surely proper for GnuPG to retain the ability to decrypt such
> data in maintained code (albeit whilst requiring users to take action to
> make changes to their configuration to be able to continue decrypting
> such data using GnuPG).
> I agree with those who say that there is no need for mail clients to be
> able to decrypt legacy-encrypted data.
> [1]
> [2]
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list