>Yeah. Less time worrying about how to make OpenPGP continue for>another
>twenty years, more time spent about how to make a next->generation
>cryptographic tool that will occupy the same space OpenPGP>did but will do it
>better and with more modern techniques.
I totally agree with you on that.
>
> "Because I think it would be cool" is a good answer if you're the one
> writing the patch and volunteering to do long-term support of it. All
> other people need to be able to answer it.
>
Hello!
I suspect the tone of your reply and the fact that you put me near script
kiddies is due to the p
> I merely asked why the official Windows binaries (at least those
> inGPG4Win) are not compiled with the already existing option
> "enable-large-secmem", which would allow keys up to 8192bit in batch
That option has only been introduced to satisfy the needs of a few
nerds and for helping with re
