| 1 |
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 15:16 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> Also, as far as I'm aware GLEP 63 does not require an encryption key |
| 3 |
> at all, just a signing key. I'm not sure if such signing-keys will be |
| 4 |
> signed by Gentoo under this proposal. If not then there is nothing to |
| 5 |
> upload to the keyserver, and in any case it seems like the main use |
| 6 |
> case of this (sending encrypted email) would not apply. Of course it |
| 7 |
> could still be used for verifying email signatures if we sign |
| 8 |
> signing-only keys. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If someone really believes it's fine to have no encryption subkey just |
| 11 |
because the GLEP doesn't require one explicitly... It either means that |
| 12 |
person is seriously lacking the technical competence, or is a horrible |
| 13 |
troll. In either case, I don't believe such a person should be a Gentoo |
| 14 |
developer. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Best regards, |
| 18 |
Michał Górny |
Archives