On 8/12/2014 at 11:46 PM, "David Shaw" <ds...@jabberwocky.com> wrote:
>>> Rather than fixing RFC-1991 support, why not go in the other >direction >>> and make it clear that it isn't supported, and won't work? ===== As a pgp 2 user, I agree with all the above, and taking whatever steps are felt to be easier to maintain and move GnuPG forward. Those who insist on using pgp2.x for whatever things (actually very very few) they feel cannot be accomplished with GnuPG, will do so anyway. I ask only, that acceptance of V3 keys be maintained, as many of us have used our V3 keys in GnuPG, (with SHA 2 and 64 bit algorithms), Otherwise, all our encrypted messages will not be able to be decrypted in later versions of GnuPG, and if the encrypted messages were signed, they would no longer be able to be verified, (as even Disastry's version, while able to decrypt everything except Camellia, cannot verify a V4 key signature). vedaal _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
