On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Robert J. Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: >> That does not seem like an argument to me for telling the user what >> is best for him. > > Hauke, this entire argument is what I meant when I talked about gilding > the lily repeatedly. If you can find half a dozen *real users* who are > being *really impacted* by this, I'd love to hear about them. But so > far, all the discussion is so hypothetical that it's hard for me to take > it seriously. > > I get that you view the current situation as in need of changing. I > don't agree, and I won't agree until I see six real life users whose > usage of GnuPG would be made significantly better by making this change. > > Until then, all I can do about this 'problem' is yawn.
^ The six-real-user test should really be applied to all features in all software! Hauke, you make one strong case and one weak one. Yes, I agree that GnuPG already lets you override so many things, why shouldn't it let you override this? It's not exactly logical (though I think that one can reconstruct the logic). But you are on weak ground when you try to say that expiration dates are only a warning, or draw a distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' statements that a key should not be used. That maybe how you use them, and it may be that expiry dates on milk are only warnings, but I have always read an 'expiry date' on a key to mean 'Do not use after this date', just like an expiry date on an ID card. Yes, perhaps you do use them in other ways, but still. I can see you've hit a key-management problem. That is really the thing that needs fixing, and if easy tools to do that are not available, then they need to be. Robert is right, I think. A little more 'policy', at least in the sense of software assisting a shared sense of good practice, would really help. N. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
