Just a foreword: sorry for not acknowledging all the good proposals you make - 
many of them I can fully second - and all the good changes you apply, I really 
appreciate them. I just do not reply to all of them ...

> Von: Werner Koch [mailto:w...@gnupg.org]
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 10:45, roman.fied...@ait.ac.at said:
> > encryption/decryption gateways. In my opinion gnupg development has a
> > strong motion towards client-only use-cases, thus I started like
> Huh?  Didn't you noticed all the new features we implemented to make the
> scripting of key managment easy or

Those are really good, I am using them already.

> the remote use gpg on servers with
> private keys kept on the desktop or another secure box?

Here I decided to implement my own solution as there is (was?) no option I 
would trust enough to reliably prohibit storage of any passphrases or unlocked 
keys in gpg agent when the key was used once. So agent is fine, but not for 
storing any unlocked key material.

> ...
> p.s:
> Regarding my other point in this thread: Your mail is an example
> for a hard to read one due to overlong lines and wrong localization of
> the the "Re:" prefix in the the subject.  I know that it is not your
> fault but due to rong defaults of some MUAs.

So right, I hate the company standard for that. Changing the prefix would 
trigger a bug/unexpected implicit behaviour of outlook, thus breaking thread 
view of common mailing list software. So I can only choose my poison.

BTW: In my opinion, you are complete right on locating the fault on MUAs side 
for that. I fear, that one reason more for them being that bad in the office 
environment could be: who would want to have complex (and vulnerable, data 
leaking) desktop search engines indexing your mails, who would buy larger 
storages if mails were only 1-10% of size and could be quickly filtered by pure 
plaintext search, who would buy stronger processors, larger RAM required 

LG Roman
Gnupg-users mailing list

Reply via email to