On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:09:53PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> My initial feeling is that we shouldn't contribute to a fragmented
> ecosystem, and that this issue would be better sorted out upstream,
> even if there's disagreement so far.
I'm leaning in that direction too. Let's leave
On Wed, Nov 11 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While working with keys.openpgp.org, I've become aware of a patch that
> allows gpg to recieve keys with no uid:
>
> https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq#older-gnupg
>
> Perhaps that's good for privacy, but upstream have rejected the patch.
Tricky..
Edd Barrett writes:
> Hi,
>
> While working with keys.openpgp.org, I've become aware of a patch that
> allows gpg to recieve keys with no uid:
>
> https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq#older-gnupg
>
> Perhaps that's good for privacy, but upstream have rejected the patch.
>
> Some Linux distros are
Hi,
While working with keys.openpgp.org, I've become aware of a patch that
allows gpg to recieve keys with no uid:
https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq#older-gnupg
Perhaps that's good for privacy, but upstream have rejected the patch.
Some Linux distros are applying the patch locally. Should we?
