Re: Question on Integrity of Sequoia-PGP Developers

Hey Matt and list,

On 9/11/25 05:54, Matt Borja via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> While I don’t know the whole backstory to what is going on with Sequoia- 
> PGP, I can say that when it comes to things like this, my recommendation 
> will always default to staying truest to form (or standard). This 
> implies a bias towards products with longevity and reputation in the 
> field, that follows a reasonable cadence of continuous improvement.
Can you clarify what you mean by "truest to form (or standard)" here? I 
read your email as an endorsement of GnuPG, which is fair enough. But 
GnuPG is the single big implementation that has decided not to implement 
RFC9580, the IETF OpenPGP standard following RFC4880. With this context, 
I'm not sure what you're saying with this paragraph.

  - V

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel