Re: no-force-v3-sigs

2007-03-10 Thread Andrew Berg
Laurent Jumet wrote: > Hello Andrew ! > > Andrew Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> owNCWmg2MUFZJlNZdJmIEgAAe3///nJoRmAH/Niv/3AAf///6gBYUQJIRKgCBAGA >>> EDAAMkCwANlIioNAGmgAAyAAAaA0aAAB6hoaA0YhwaNGgaDQGTEBkaGQABppkAAA >>> wQAGqZNBPFTbVPQnqaBoNGgZNMZQG1AAG1NAPUNo0IVjWWSuyM1TmmqY8NR90zKy >>> 12j

Re: no-force-v3-sigs

2007-03-09 Thread Laurent Jumet
Hello David ! David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> May we assume that no-force-v3-sigs is the default in 1.4.7 ? > It is not the default. It should be made the default eventually, but > it's not yet. I was thinking about expiration date of subkeys: sh

Re: no-force-v3-sigs

2007-03-09 Thread David Shaw
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 05:02:44AM +0100, Laurent Jumet wrote: > > Hello David ! > > David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> May we assume that no-force-v3-sigs is the default in 1.4.7 ? > > > It is not the default. It should be made the d

Re: no-force-v3-sigs

2007-03-09 Thread David Shaw
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:25:35PM +0100, Laurent Jumet wrote: > Hello ! > > May we assume that no-force-v3-sigs is the default in 1.4.7 ? It is not the default. It should be made the default eventually, but it's not yet. David _

no-force-v3-sigs

2007-03-09 Thread Laurent Jumet
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) owNCWmg2MUFZJlNZdJmIEgAAe3///nJoRmAH/Niv/3AAf///6gBYUQJIRKgCBAGA EDAAMkCwANlIioNAGmgAAyAAAaA0aAAB6hoaA0YhwaNGgaDQGTEBkaGQABppkAAA wQAGqZNBPFTbVPQnqaBoNGgZNMZQG1AAG1NAPUNo0IVjWWSuyM1TmmqY8NR90zKy 12jrMdhEbD0z16J17Xgxg4pkASOuseqqEE7yFL5TI0I