On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, David Shaw wrote:
> The defaults in GnuPG are chosen to be basically sane for the
> overwhelming majority of users. People who are recompiling GnuPG need
> to understand the implications of the change they are making and be
> aware they're throwing away that safety net.
==
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:31:15PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> > This year is slightly different in that I'm waiting for someone to
> > discover they can also raise the key size limit for DSA. That, at
> > least, is marginally less strange as I put in code to make the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote:
> This year is slightly different in that I'm waiting for someone to
> discover they can also raise the key size limit for DSA. That, at
> least, is marginally less strange as I put in code to make the hash
> size automatically ri
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:24:22PM -0500, Newton Hammet wrote:
> I did this before in gnupg-1.2.1 (Check the mailing list archives)
> but it was a different change... I think, to a header file. (I don't
> have or can no longer find the detritus from that excursion) I was
> much more energetic then
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:58 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> >> >>> Lot's of other stuff, not top-posted here.
> GnuPG supports RSA keys much larger than 4096 bits. It does not,
> however, currently allow generation of such keys, so the keys must
> come from elsewhere.
>
> > Isn't it more usefull to s
