A few more hours with AI reveals more bugs...
I think I see where much of the problem lies: you seem to think that Andrew and I are LLMs, and that by just insisting we are wrong we'll immediately tell you that of course we screwed that up and you're right to bring this to our attention.
This is of course bollocks, and for that reason I won't belabor it further.In philosophy they like to talk about "category error," by which they mean to have so completely misunderstood a subject that there is no point in even holding discourse until the fundamental misunderstanding is corrected.
If President Roosevelt's reaction to Japanese naval aviation bombing the U.S. at Pearl Harbor was to say "this is horrific, the scourge of naval aviation must be ended, immediately scuttle all our aircraft carriers with their planes on them!", he would be suffering category error: he would have so completely misunderstood things that any and all discussion would be pointless until it was corrected.
That's where you are right now. It stings to be told "you've so completely misunderstood things there's no point in talking to you," but that's where we are. I'm sorry.
Specifically:* You are glorifying the days of PGP 1. PGP 1 was a professional embarrassment to Phil Z, as he himself has said. PGP did not reach any state worth using until PGP 2.6, and even then there were problems.
* PGP 2.6 is not more reliable than GnuPG 2.5. PGP 2.6 was written in 1992. We know vastly more now about writing security-critical code than we did back then.
* The use of software libraries does not mean software is unreliable, buggy, or insecure.
* The RFCs defining OpenPGP (RFC2440, 4880, 4880bis, and 9580) are not just trustworthy: they are defining. The same can be said of the LibrePGP specification. To disagree with the plain text of the RFC is rather like disagreeing with the number pi and saying it's actually 22/7 on the nose and you won't put up with this entire "ratio of a circle's perimeter to its diameter" nonsense.
* You think that being rude to people who are helpfully providing you with correct information is somehow acceptable.
If you're willing to confront these five different things you have gotten fundamentally wrong, further discussion might be fruitful.
If you're not, I'm going to respectfully suggest you be given the boot, in order to keep this community one we all want to be part of.
Please choose wisely.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
