Why does GPG continue to be developed with email uses in mind even though it's now widely accepted that GPG is a terrible way to securely communicate with another person and that a number of much more secure, much more robust, much less complicated (from the end user perspective) solutions exist? I'm guessing it's the same reason.
-Ryan McGinnis http://www.bigstormpicture.com PGP Fingerprint: 5C73 8727 EE58 786A 777C 4F1D B5AA 3FA3 486E D7AD ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, January 5th, 2021 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users <gnupg-users@gnupg.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:44 PM Werner Koch via Gnupg-users > > gnupg-users@gnupg.org wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 07:27, Jean-David Beyer said: > > > > > Building a web of trust is so hopeless, from my point of view, that I > > > > > > have abandonned gnupg. I have made keys for myself, obtained enigmail > > > > Virtually nobody uses the WoT. What people use are direct key > > > > signatures. That is you verify a key's owner and then sign that key. > > > > Usually not even exportable. Verification is often done by trust on > > > > first use. And that is okay for the majority of use cases. > > Not sure I understand you correctly, but why are then SKS key servers > > still in operation, which allows third parties to look up who signed > > who's key and with what trust level and GnuPG's WoT support, compared > > to sq and Hagrid? > > Regards > > Stefan > > Gnupg-users mailing list > > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
