On 22/02/18 15:18, helices wrote: > Let's cut through these ill-informed suppositions once and for all You are rapidly squandering good will here. Your hostile tone will not motivate anyone to help you any further. You are asking people to spend their spare time on your issues, you should not deride them. None of the posters here spent their spare time on your questions without the intent to help you. You are insulting them.
> Defending processes and systems to egregiously non-technical auditors is > a challenge that grows year by year. If you have not qualified for PCI > DSS Level 1, then you probably have only a cursory understanding of this > situation. Based on previous questions I've posted here in last several > years, it's clear to me that none of the experts here have such experience. I almost get the impression half of the mails don't come through, because I just read Ben McGinnes state the complete opposite. Also, and more importantly, if you're so worried about the competences of the people you ask questions, you should hire experts, not post on a community mailing list. > Sometimes, a question is just a question. And sometimes it is an insult thinly disguised as one. > Our new environment will continue with gnupg v2.0.22, because that is > the security level supported by stable and secure Linux operating > systems. Please, do not debate me on this. I agree: I don't wish to debate you on this. I /will/ state my dissent with the statement before. I consider Debian stretch/stable a "stable and secure Linux operating system", and that carries GnuPG v2.1.18 (with backported fixes of course). Goodbye, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
