> I know there are and have been fierce discussions about the useful > length of RSA-Keys. I don't want to dive deeper into that, and I hope > this special question has not been discussed recently:
If you're going to propose a change like that, you need to make a case for it. * Who currently is being harmed by not supporting RSA-16384? * Why is RSA-16384 necessary for them? "Because I think it would be cool" is a good answer if you're the one writing the patch and volunteering to do long-term support of it. All other people need to be able to answer it. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
