Ian Jackson, on Wed 10 Aug 2016 18:56:52 +0100, wrote:
> Samuel Thibault writes ("Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key
> collisions in the wild"):
> > Ian Jackson, on Wed 10 Aug 2016 13:45:05 +0100, wrote:
> > > I don't know what side of this (one) line such a proposed gpg change
> > > falls. I still think it's unsatisfactory that our stable release has
> > > a default behaviour which cannot be used safely.
> >
> > Well, I'd argue that 64bit IDs are not safe either, they have not been
> > made to be.
>
> This is precisely the kind of point I was thinking of when I wrote:
>
> Even if long keyids are not sufficient, they are a big improvement and
> we should not let fixing this problem properly stand in the way of
> doing what we can, now.
>
> This is now the second time I have cut and pasted that into this
> thread. I feel frustrated.
>
> Did you miss that paragraph the first two times (in which case I guess
> me repeating it was useful) ?
I missed it, yes, sorry.
Samuel
