On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:23 AM, David Shaw <ds...@jabberwocky.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:20 AM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote: > >> On 08/12/2014 08:41 PM, David Shaw wrote: >>> Maybe the answer is to remove the things to generate PGP 2 messages >>> specifically, and leave the other stuff? >> >> Yes please. :) >> >> Not being able to encrypt/sign with PGP 2 at this point is totally >> reasonable. Not being able to decrypt/verify leads to toolchain >> complications down the road for people with such archives, and sends a >> dangerous message that we're not serious about backwards compatibility. > > I think the context has been lost in that sentence. The "other stuff" I was > referring to was --pgp6, --pgp7, etc. The --pgpX options in general. There > was never a question of removing the ability to decrypt PGP 2 messages. As > you say, that would destroy the ability to decrypt old messages. You are correct, I did not understand your context there. Thank you for clarifying. Doug _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
