In message <544005e3.2040...@digitalbrains.com>,
Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com> wrote:
>On 15/10/14 23:45, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> There *are* simply solutions to this rather trivial and common
>> problem.
>
>I don't consider that a trivial problem, actually. I can think of
>many threat models where it is entirely non-trivial. You never mentioned
>a threat model.
Please see the other reply I just now posted in this thread. I believe
that should completely clarify the "threat model".
>> OK. Swell. Ignoring, for the moment, the personal condescension
>> implicit in your comments
>
>There was no condescension in there; none at all whatsoever. I don't
>consider myself knowledgeable enough to write such an implementation.
>And I'm not condescending towards myself.
>
>I'm sorry that you felt it that way; if I had ever considered that you
>might find it condescending I would have included a disclaimer. However,
>I thought the following two quotes together already made it clear that
>it was no condescension.
OK, to clarify, I made my first ever posting to this list. In it I asked
(in effect) "How can I use tool X to achieve goal Y". In your reply,
you said, in effect, "Using X is too complicated" and you suggested no
other alternatives. I was left with the distinct impression that you
had concluded that I posses neither the requsite knowledge _nor_ even
the capacity to learn how to apply or use Libcrypt in any way that might
be useful to me.
I might be ignorant, and indeed, as I already myself confessed, I *am*
rather entirely ignorant, both of the deep underpinnings of modern
cryptography generally, and of Libcrypt's public interfaces specifically.
However my feeling is that anyone who jumps to a conclusion, based on
that, that I either cannot learn or cannot be taught is doing me a
profound disservice. (And yes, I do tend to take such slights personally,
perhaps improperly so, particularly when it is late at night, when I am
tired and frustrated, e.g. by missing bits of documentation, and when
I find myself still in need of a solution, to which I seem to be comming
no closer.)
>You have my apologies for writing something you misread as
>condescending. Other than that, I'm done here.
Apology accepted.
I construed and summarized your entire reply as being basically equivalent
to:
"You {Ron Guilmette} cannot use tool X to achieve goal Y."
In the absence of any suggestions, on your part, for alternatives, this
did indeed seem like a rather dismissive brush off, and most probably a
personal one.
If that was indeed not at all what you meant, then I also offer _my_
apology, i.e. for having misconstrued.
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
