On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 11:12:41 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2019-01-08 15:55:30 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > it seems a bit to much if you look at avatars, profile images > > etc. on social media sites and other places. The images there are always > > reasonably in size when displayed and do not offer such large image size for > > usage, IIRC. > > I think you're recommending making a change to that default value.
Good question! I think a recommendation is already to late, because like Peter said one can change the values. To be honest i don't understand why this was implemented this way in the first place, but it should be not my business i guess and people might use it as a replacement for Yakamo K's image uploader to SKS, because GnuPG makes it convenient to view then such images. > Do you have a new default value that you want to propose for future > versions of GnuPG? GnuPG itself suggests an image size of 240x288 pixels when doing so. Maybe slightly larger would be fine too. > Have you tried reducing it to your new proposed default value and > experimented with it, to let us know what it does to, say, photos larger > than that value already stored in your keyring? No. > have you tried looking at statistics of what sizes of images are present > in the public keyserver dumps? Not yet, but it should be interesting to parse a dump. > those would all be reasonable next steps if you want to present a > convincing case for action here. I did not ask for action here, even if it sounded like that. I was curious to know why such a large size was implemented. Regards Stefan _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users