removing the secmem warning

[Daniel Monjar]

but is unsecured memory a risk?  If it is worth warning about then it=
=20
should be warned about.  Just because they are clueless newbies doesn=
't=20
mean they should be coddled to.  A presumption of security is worse t=
han no=20
security.

--On Monday, January 07, 2002 7:37 PM +0100 "Janusz A. Urbanowicz"=
=20
<alex@bofh.torun.pl> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 01:29:54PM -0500, Frank Tobin wrote:
>> I'd like to question the need for the secmem warning.  Do you actu=
ally
>> think it is useful?  I am coming to the conclusion that it is only
>> causing confusion among users.  As the GnuPG users crowd widens, w=
e're
>> only going to see more of the same issue of people asking "what is=
 this
>> error?".
>>
>> It's not the asking that is the problem; it is a symptom of many u=
sers
>> being confused, many that *aren't posting* and think there is a pr=
oblem
>> with their GnuPG.  FAQ's don't help unless they are integrated wit=
h the
>> software (GnuPG's FAQ isn't).  manpages help a bit, but they are
>> reference manuals, not help systems.
>>
>> Hence, I suggest that by default, there no secmem warning, and tha=
t there
>> should be an alternate option "secmem warning" which turns it on.
>>
>> What sayeth you?
>
> I'd say that instead of messing with commandline options, there sho=
uld be
> no-secmem-warning in g10/options.skel thus making it default
>
> Alex
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users



--
Daniel Monjar
IS Manager, Technical Services
bioM=E9rieux, Inc.
Durham, NC US