Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Friday, September 04, 2015 09:54:58 AM Johan Wevers wrote: > On 04-09-2015 0:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Here's the question I really want people to answer: "At what point do we > > tell people, 'no, that data format has been obsolete for twenty years, > > we're not going to support it any

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 04-09-2015 0:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Here's the question I really want people to answer: "At what point do we > tell people, 'no, that data format has been obsolete for twenty years, > we're not going to support it any more, it's not even close to > conforming to the RFCs we implement'?"

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:54, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said: > Never IMO. This attitude leads to data being lost forever because new > software can't read it anymore while the cost of adding read-only > support is small. No, that is entirely wrong. The whole PGP-2 stuff has been removed and thus

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 28-08-2015 a las 4:37, Werner Koch escribió: ... > Some of these old time users may not follow the news thus may be > baffled when they figure that gpg is not able to decrypt their old > data. Thus a short note that a GPG 1 version is

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

> IMHO, it would be desirable that the current version can still open > old data, even if it refuses to encrypt that way. But maybe keeping > the decrypt old data capability has some inconveniences. Here's the question I really want people to answer: "At what point do we tell people, 'no, that

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!! > On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Faramir wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > >> El 28-08-2015 a las 4:37, Werner Koch escribió: >> ... >> Some of these old time users may not follow the news thus may

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:15:21 -0400 Crissy Lynn wrote: >PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS MAILING LIST!! All of the e-mails I get from this list have the following header. List-Unsubscribe: ,

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 03-09-2015 a las 19:46, Robert J. Hansen escribió: >> IMHO, it would be desirable that the current version can still >> open old data, even if it refuses to encrypt that way. But maybe >> keeping the decrypt old data capability has some

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:45, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said: > Less complex by introducing communication issues between all separate > parts? We clearly have a different idea of complexity. Separartion of So be it. > tasks does not automatically mean separate binaries. That used to be the > Unix

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

Hello, On 31/08/15 21:08, Crissy Lynn wrote: > I have tried any and everything the be taken OFF of this random > mailing list!!! I've 'Unsubscribed' 10 times. Can someone PLEASE > explain why I keep getting these emails!?? I might have an idea about that. Gmail has an unusual feature: you

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 28-08-2015 23:27, Werner Koch wrote: > You want better software? Then make it less complex and separate tasks > - 2.x does just that - since 2003. Less complex by introducing communication issues between all separate parts? We clearly have a different idea of complexity. Separartion of tasks

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

I have tried any and everything the be taken OFF of this random mailing list!!! I've 'Unsubscribed' 10 times. Can someone PLEASE explain why I keep getting these emails!?? > On Aug 31, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Johan Wevers wrote: > >> On 28-08-2015 23:27, Werner Koch

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:41, listofac...@mail.ru said: have no problem with TSR (terminate-but-stay-resident :) components and the fallacy of always on-line and trusted computer. Those that use GPG because they need to, depend on 1.4. Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:37, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some years now, and is what the GnuPG developers recommend for new users. Further, a good part of the GnuPG ecosystem is moving to 2.0-only (e.g., FWIW: 2.1 even made it into

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 27-08-2015 23:37, Robert J. Hansen wrote: The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some years now, and is what the GnuPG developers recommend for new users. I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me: drop support for obsolete features and

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 28-08-2015 18:12, Peter Lebbing wrote: 1.4 is fully supported, but occupies a niche. Support is not dropped, nobody forces you to upgrade. It's starting to feel a little bit with ECC not coming to 1.4 (missing function required to exchange messages with 2.1 users) and v3 key support removed

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me: drop support for obsolete features PGP 2.6 *is* obsolete. There's no point in using quotation marks. Read this URL: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836068 Software developers, Certification Authorities, website owners,

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 28/08/15 16:12, Johan Wevers wrote: I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me: drop support for obsolete features and still try to force everyone to upgrade, [...] 1.4 is fully supported, but occupies a niche. Support is not dropped, nobody forces you to

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 27/08/15 20:41, Robert J. Hansen wrote: I, personally, don't think it's a big deal to drop mention of 1.4 except to talk about it's for system administrators, not regular users. However, I'd really like to hear your feedback on this. Should we make this change? Yes or no? Yes

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:14, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said: It's starting to feel a little bit with ECC not coming to 1.4 (missing function required to exchange messages with 2.1 users) and v3 key If we would add ECC support to 1.4, it would end up as a rewrite of 2.1 with the only difference

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 08/27/2015 06:41 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: My rationale for this is simple: we don't want to encourage new users to use 1.4. We want to encourage new users to use 2.0 and/or 2.1. ... I, personally, don't think it's a big deal to drop mention of 1.4 except to talk about it's for system

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:41, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: I, personally, don't think it's a big deal to drop mention of 1.4 except to talk about it's for system administrators, not regular users. However, I'd really like to hear your feedback on this. Should we make this change? Yes or no?

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

On 27-08-2015 20:41, Robert J. Hansen wrote: My rationale for this is simple: we don't want to encourage new users to use 1.4. We want to encourage new users to use 2.0 and/or 2.1. Why? I still use 1.4. It is easily usable through the command line if needed, while 2.x has a very complicated

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

I still find it much easier to use off of a USB key than 2.x, and so continue to use it, FWIW. The 2.x version doesn't work with the (non-FLOSS) shell I use either, but that isn't a reason to keep it mentioned. Avi User:Avraham pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key)

Re: FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

Why? I still use 1.4. It is easily usable through the command line if needed, while 2.x has a very complicated setup with lots of external dependencies and has a feature bloat most users will never need. The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some years now, and is