On Tue, 2019-10-22 at 00:59 +0100, MFPA via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Monday 21 October 2019 at 6:09:17 AM, in
> , Robert J.
> Hansen wrote:-
>
> > Due to Yahoo! Groups closing, the PGPNET mailing list
> > has moved to
> > groups.io;
>
> I thought PGPNET's move was prompted by degraded perf
> I thought PGPNET's move was prompted by degraded performance on the
> yahoogroups platform, which lead some group members to look around and
> find something that worked better.
What I know is this: I was asked by a PGPNET member to change the
address, and the cause for the change was the immine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 21 October 2019 at 6:09:17 AM, in
, Robert J.
Hansen wrote:-
> Due to Yahoo! Groups closing, the PGPNET mailing list
> has moved to
> groups.io;
I thought PGPNET's move was prompted by degraded performance on the
yahoogroups platform,
On 21/10/2019 06:09, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Due to Yahoo! Groups closing
I know it doesn't really matter here and now but Yahoo Groups is not
closing. It's only the ancillary services that are being deleted. Yahoo
Groups continues in service as a very basic mail list service (with no
archive),
Due to Yahoo! Groups closing, the PGPNET mailing list has moved to
groups.io; the FAQ has been updated with the change. Nobody objected to
this, so it seems like a safe change.
Due to a lack of any consensus for how the existing text should change,
I've made no other edits at this time. This is
Okay, I replaced 11.1 by the text using sub-questions. Is that what
you meant?
Looks good to me. :)
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:59, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> inclusion, yes. I'd suggest removing 11.1 and replacing it with that
> content.
Okay, I replaced 11.1 by the text using sub-questions. Is that what you
meant?
https://gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#default_rsa2048
Shalom-Salam,
Wern
On 14/08/14 15:59, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I haven't heard any big objections, so I think it's good for inclusion,
> yes.
It looks good to me[1], thanks for writing it!
Peter.
[1] That feels a bit odd, who cares how it looks to me. On the other
hand, it never feels odd to object to something t
Okay, to update the FAQ ?
I haven't heard any big objections, so I think it's good for inclusion,
yes. I'd suggest removing 11.1 and replacing it with that content.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/
What you think?
So far nobody's asked that question, either on the mailing list or to me
personally, so ...
Weird as this may be to hear, I actually want to keep the FAQ small.
The point of a FAQ is not to be a comprehensive resource: it's to answer
*frequently* *asked* *questions*. For co
Am 14.08.2014 um 04:32 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> On 8/13/2014 5:22 PM, Martin Behrendt wrote:
>> Because they probably will become frequently asked questions in the
>> future.
>
> The questions experts think will be frequently asked are usually rarely
> asked. :)
>
>
But I don't qualify as a
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 19:18, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> visibility/feedback. If the community approves, I'll be submitting
> this to Werner for inclusion into the FAQ.
Okay, to update the FAQ ?
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
=
Q: Why does GnuPG default to 2048-bit RSA?
A: At the time the decis
On 8/13/2014 5:22 PM, Martin Behrendt wrote:
> Because they probably will become frequently asked questions in the
> future.
The questions experts think will be frequently asked are usually rarely
asked. :)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 13.08.2014 um 20:43 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
>> Hi Robert, This looks great. One very minor point (possibly not
>> germane, please comment): Are you discussing the reliability of
>> the NIST P curves for ECC?
>
> No, because that's the first ti
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:46, robe...@broadcom.com said:
> This looks great. One very minor point (possibly not germane, please
> comment): Are you discussing the reliability of the NIST P curves for
> ECC? What is GPG planning as the default curves? NIST, Brainpool or ?
For signing Ed25519 which us
Hi Robert, This looks great. One very minor point (possibly not
germane, please comment): Are you discussing the reliability of the
NIST P curves for ECC?
No, because that's the first time anyone's asked that question on the
list -- so it's not a frequently asked question. :)
What is GPG pl
[mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of Robert J.
Hansen
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:19 AM
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: FAQ change, final draft
A few weeks ago on -devel I made a proposal for a FAQ change. So far
I've received feedback from three people, all of it f
logarithmically in key strength. So yes, a switch to ECC would be equivalent to
much larger RSA keys. I'm not sure, but didn't discrete-logarithm keys scale
roughly equivalently to RSA? I think so, but I'm not sure...
Yes. The general consensus is that the discrete logarithm problem is
harder
On 08/12/2014 12:58 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
This and the answer below seem slightly contradictory. Or do you mean
that a switch to ECC is equivalent to using much bigger keys?
The guidance from NIST is:
[1] shannons of entropy needed
[2] bits of symmetric key
[3] bits of RSA/DSA/ELG
[4] bi
This and the answer below seem slightly contradictory. Or do you mean
that a switch to ECC is equivalent to using much bigger keys?
The guidance from NIST is:
[1] shannons of entropy needed
[2] bits of symmetric key
[3] bits of RSA/DSA/ELG
[4] bits of ECDSA/ECetc.
[1] [2] [3] [4]
On 12/08/14 21:36, MFPA wrote:
> This and the answer below seem slightly contradictory. Or do you mean
> that a switch to ECC is equivalent to using much bigger keys?
A comparatively slight increase in ECC key length is equivalent to a large
increase in RSA key length, particularly since RSA key l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 11 August 2014 at 6:18:33 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> That said, many are suggesting shifting to larger
> keys, and GnuPG will be making such a shift in the
> near future.
This and the answer below seem slightly cont
On August 11, 2014 10:18:33 AM PDT, "Robert J. Hansen"
wrote:
>A few weeks ago on -devel I made a proposal for a FAQ change. So far
>I've received feedback from three people, all of it fairly positive,
>all
>suggesting mild changes. The following represents a fi
A few weeks ago on -devel I made a proposal for a FAQ change. So far
I've received feedback from three people, all of it fairly positive, all
suggesting mild changes. The following represents a final draft, which
I'm now presenting on -users to get the most visibility/feedback
24 matches
Mail list logo
