> So, let's make an insecure system instead of maybe changing the law? Feel free to push for it. Optimistically, you might be able to get it done in five years. And in the interim time, you need to have a method to deal with the world as it is, because the world doesn't care what you think it should be.
> Or maybe changing your priority as a president. I don't think you'll have much luck changing the President's priorities. > This is, again, rhetoric and not an argument. I explained that before. As I explained, you are choosing not to recognize the argument. Point blank: /the world does not care what you think./ Nor what I think, for that matter. The world cares about its established procedures and The Way Things Have Always Been Done. If you try very hard, you may be able to make small amounts of headway in changing small things. I encourage this: choose wisely where you will expend your efforts. But that will still leave vast parts of the world that will not be changed, and you have to have some plan for dealing with those parts other than to tsk-tsk and say, "well, they shouldn't be doing that." By all means, pick an important part of the world that needs changing and work on it. But the rest of the world will keep on going about its merry way, not giving a damn what you -- or I -- think of it. Should third-party signatures on behalf of another exist? That's an irrelevant question. What's relevant is they *do* exist. If you want to commit your life to changing this, feel free: go with God and I wish you luck. But otherwise, deal with the world as it is, because the world genuinely does not care what you think of it. Or what I think of it, for that matter. This is the last I'm going to say on the matter: if I'm not abundantly clear by this point, I doubt I'll be any more clear in the future. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
