On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:50 PM, listo factor <listofac...@mail.ru> wrote: > > To perform tasks that GPG is designed to accomplish in a safe manner > is *very, very hard*, and even the best documentation could not change > that fact. The efforts which concentrate on making it easy might > indeed increase the number of people that use it, but at the expense > of their safety. That, to me, appears to be behind a lot of projects > similar to the one discussed here. >
So, maybe they will be safer if they don't use GPG at all? No efforts to facilitate GPG should be made because this will undermine the security of the users? GPG is only for the super-experts? I don't get this logic. I beleive that in certain conditions and under certain assumptions, only a small subset of GPG is needed. The rest can just not be used or have reasonable defaults. I beleive that simplification is possible and useful.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users