https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122905
[email protected] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #6 from [email protected] --- Thanks, however there are still some problems: The following statement is not strictly true: "A hash value processed on the downloaded file is a way to make sure that the content is authentic and was not manipulated by an unauthorized third party" Hashes should only be used to check that a download has completed OK. They are not suitable for content authentication. The following sentence does not read well: >>When both signatures match it is indicated with an "Good signature from >><Person who has created the signature> statement.<<. There is only one signature; "both" does not make sense here. It should probably read something like: >>If the signature matches the file this is show by the message "Good signature >>from <Person who has created the signature>."<< It is wrong to insist that Windows users download a specific hashing tool; there are lots of other tools that are suitable. "Please try again a download to get a valid file." - should read: "Please try the download again, and recheck. If the check still fails, try another browser if possible. Check also that the file size is correct." "Please consult the respective help " => "Please consult the relevant help " "Be aware that all mails do not go to a single person but a so-called mailing list." => "Please note that all mails go to a public mailing list, not an individual." It would be helpful if the following text were actually a link: http://www.apache.org/dist/openoffice/KEYS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.
