Hi!
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> FWIW, You should use public key encryption instead of symmetric only
> encryption. This makes everything much easier.
I don't think so. Every project encrypt it backups with different
passwords (needed for security), and right now I can keep just several
dozens of passwords, but with public keys I'll need to keep several dozens
of .gnupg directories instead, which is harder to manage.
> A littel warning: gpg-agent is is a cornerstone of GnuPG-2. You can't
> do much without it. Today gpg2 might be usable without a running
> gpg-agent but with the current branch this will change: All secret key
> operations are then diverted to the agent.
I know. Right now it run gpg-agent in server mode and talk to it STDIN -
that's ok for my needs. I don't try to avoid running gpg-agent, I just
wanna suppress warning.
> In your case the agent is required to return the S2K count. This values
> is computed only once because it takes some time can can't be done for
> each invcation. To avoid this you may try option "--s2k-count N". You
> can get a suitable value for N on your machine by running the command
>
> gpg-connect-agent 'getinfo s2k_count' /bye
Wow, it works! With this parameter gpg doesn't output that warning
anymore (and doesn't try to start gpg-agent).
I wonder what is physical sense of this number? Is it safe to hardcode one
number for all user accounts on same server (many servers)?
P.S. But I still think much more clear solution is just add option to
suppress warning message and let gpg start own copy of gpg-agent when it
need it.
--
WBR, Alex.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
