Re: lsh November 18

[Werner Koch]

Niels M�ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> which should perhaps be removed for patent reasons). One thing that
> needs consideration is handling of weak keys; the current lsh code
> doesn't handle that.

Don't care about weak keys.  They are _highly_ unlikely for random
session keys it is more likely that other parts of the computer fail.
So if it makes the thing more complicated forget about them - I
consider the handling of weak keys in GnuPG a more or less cosmetic
thing :-)


 Werner