On 21/05/2018 02:12, Jochen Schüttler wrote: > I'm all for breaking backwards compatibility. > > What's the worst the haters can do? Turn their back on GnuPG? Shout out > really loud once more? I think they should get a life!
I rather suspect they do have a life supporting scenarios that they cannot change that require legacy-decryption capability. If legacy-decryption was removed entirely from current versions of GnuPG then they would simply have to continue using old, unsupported, and potentially vulnerable versions. I do not think it is reasonable to just cut them off entirely. As Philipp Klaus Krause [1] and Dirk Gottschalk [2] pointed out above, breaking backward compatibility does not have to be (and should not be in my opinion) absolute. The ability to decrypt old, legacy-encrypted data is, like it or not, still present in the real world and it is therefore surely proper for GnuPG to retain the ability to decrypt such data in maintained code (albeit whilst requiring users to take action to make changes to their configuration to be able to continue decrypting such data using GnuPG). I agree with those who say that there is no need for mail clients to be able to decrypt legacy-encrypted data. [1] https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-May/060473.html [2] https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-May/060474.html -- Mark Rousell PGP public key: http://www.signal100.com/markr/pgp Key ID: C9C5C162
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
