> > "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. >
Hello! I suspect the tone of your reply and the fact that you put me near script kiddies is due to the previous discussions about key length?! So let me set the record straight on a few things: I did not talk about 16384bit keys, nor did I suggest or demand a patch for GnuPG. I merely asked why the official Windows binaries (at least those inGPG4Win) are not compiled with the already existing option "enable-large-secmem", which would allow keys up to 8192bit in batch mode operation, and suggested to do so in future versions. Much has already been argued about the sense or nonsense, we don't need to repeat that here. But the option is already implemented and used in other ready-made packages, e.g. in Debian Buster. So to the best of my knowledge beyond a setting switch when compiling new versions, there would be no long-term support effort in the code. So why not also under Windows? Karel _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
