Thank you for your reply, much appreciated! I will however ask also Ernst here again the same question one more time again, as an illustrative example.
Regards Stefan On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 3:25 PM Phil Pennock via Gnupg-users <gnupg-users@gnupg.org> wrote: > > On 2020-11-02 at 13:49 +0100, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:10, Phil Pennock said: > > > recipient. That's fine. I'd rather create pressure for people to fix > > > their systems to use modern cryptography than cater to their brokenness > > > with sensitive messages. > > > > People won't update their keys - that just does not work. Ignoring the > > preferences is a better way here. > > First: thank you for the code changes! > > As to the people part: for a generic call to action, you're right. But > that's not the social dynamic in play here. > > For a specific set of people who know each other, trying to communicate > securely, if someone says "hey your key is too broken to use, please fix > it, here's a command to run (which you should check for yourself), > please do so and send us your new public key" ... then that works. > > In the generic case, there's a hypothetical reward requiring work now. > In the specific case, it's a case of "you're getting cut out of this > ongoing conversation which presumably matters to you, do this now to get > back in". If the conversation really does matter to that person, then > they will fix their key. I have gotten people to fix various problems > on exactly this basis. > > For everyone I am not talking to? Not my business, not my problem. > I can only issue advice and shrug when people ignore it. > > Now I just need a sane way to figure out which key caused this. :) > > Thanks, > -Phil > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
