On 10/4/2012 9:00 PM, MFPA wrote: > I guess it depends what speeds you are used to. I expect about three > minutes to search around 65,000 messages (including around 3000 > encrypted) at home using The Bat!, and a little longer at work to > search through 2000-3000 unencrypted messages using Outlook.
Yeah, and me, if doing a fulltext search on 100,000 messages takes more than a fraction of a second, something's quite wrong. Responsiveness matters. > Anyway, I would anticipate spam volumes to be lower if all messages > were encrypted. Would the spammers invest the cpu cycles to encrypt > their messages to each and every recipient? Of course they would. They're already running on hijacked systems, using botnets to send out spam: why would they care about using up a lot of somebody else's CPU? They already don't care about using up a lot of somebody else's network connection. > At times I recommend things like restaurants, films, holiday > destinations, pubs, books, nightclubs, bands. Nobody elected me for > that either Yes. Recommendations are all well and good. There's a difference between a recommendation and a should, though. If I say, "I really liked this restaurant: they had wonderful seafood," that's different from saying, "You should go to this restaurant: they have wonderful seafood." The first is a statement about how you interact with the world. The second is rather rude if you say it to someone who's allergic to shellfish, or someone who for religious or dietary reasons must abstain from seafood, or... etc. > And what's wrong with having safe and sane defaults for those who > choose not to make their own informed choices? This is a meaningless question, because it presumes there's a single objective standard for what is "safe and sane." There isn't: all security decisions are context-sensitive. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
