> I find this very disturbing, since it is highly probable that revoked messages contain private stuff. I do not like the idea that all messages I revoke are sent to razor's nomination servers in plain text. As a matter of fact: I think this is a design error. Or am I wrong?
This is a significant design error. I reported it to Vipul months ago. He was of the opinion that this had been corrected a long time ago, as it apparently has been in the windows clients that connect to the same network. I offered to send him a packet dump.
As to the suggestion in another reply that changing this would prevent the e4 mechanism from working, I don't think this is a big issue. You'd just have an overlap period where the new checksums are being accumulated. Old checksums which are not coming in any more are not all that significant, so it wouldn't take all that long for a new algorithm to get up to speed.
Hmm, that actually makes considerable sense. I'd not considered that approach. It bypasses the need to rebuild entirely.
So, if an overlap approach is taken, the problems I identified are mitigated.
My bad.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
