Re: GnuPG 2.4.4 still using legacy packets?
Werner Koch via Gnupg-users <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi! Some background on why we have these compliance options: Back then when we developed rfc2440, and later rfc4880, it was useful to have them to test the changes we implemented in PGP and GnuPG. The --pgp options were also useful in the early days for an easy migration path from pgp2 to gpg; in particular in MUAs like Pine and such. These days they are mostly useless because everyone demands MDC and it is virtually impossible to keep the compliance options exactly up to the respective specification. But people are using them and thus it is hard to remove the option. The new generalized option --compliance is now used to restrict he GnuPG behaviour to certain compliance requirements. Currently only for the German/EU/NATO compliance but maybe later also for FIPS. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 284 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iJ8EARYKAEcWIQSHd0YfKgdOvEgNNZQZzByeCFsQegUCaRY80RsUgAAAAAAEAA5t YW51MiwyLjUrMS4xMSwyLDINHHdrQGdudXBnLm9yZwAKCRAZzByeCFsQeiMJAP9w 7Y0MQLXWIpGHIMrct1J8Ot+ouE3ipaTNu9WUjC5/igEAgtpPsVcfEXpBclCF4I+m MQrZuxXilBMVoRpLyaF6IwI= =qxbM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----