Am So 08.06.2014, 18:51:39 schrieb Suspekt: > > There is a /lot/ of bad advice out there; I'd be wary of linking to > > it. > I understand that. But those links are out there and just by searching > on the internet you'll find a lot of some, because they seem to quite > popular on google... Maybe start a "bad practice" list? naming and > shaming?
There are recommendations you can discuss for quite a while but there are also (and that's probably the majority of cases you mean) statements which are stupid or plain wrong. "Before you can use a key you have to make it valid. In order to get this done just set the owner trust to ultimate"... And incomplete information: "After creating the key create a revocation certificate, too." I still have to be told why it shall be possible to have a safe backup of the revocation certificate but impossible (or less possible) to have a safe backup of the secret mainkey... When I encounter such statements (more or less limited to German pages) then I contact the author or leave a comment on that page. As they all make the same mistakes I meanwhile have a list of text blocks which I can use with copy&paste... I even offer to check articles before or after publication: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/webautoren/ I recommend that all qualified people do the same when encountering bad articles. It seems important to me to increase the quality of information out there. Hauke -- Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/unterstuetzer/ http://userbase.kde.org/Concepts/OpenPGP_Help_Spread OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
