gpg4win expired code signing cert; please renew.

[Robert J. Hansen]

> It is irrelevant whether you form a group.

I certainly do not form a mathematical group: while I have an identity
and I associate, I lack an inverse. :)

> Your argument equates to "PQC breaks RSA".

I'm not making an argument. I'm only asking a question. You're asserting
your layering scheme is safe. If it's safe it should not form a group
under functional composition, and that can be demonstrated
mathematically. It appears you can't demonstrate it, and that leads me
to grave doubts about whether to take you seriously.

> One of the orgs who would have the most to gain by misleading the 
> public as to the timelines,  so that they might 1.Gain an advantage 
> early; 2. Keep it a secret;  and 3. Delay the advantage being 
> eliminated through the normal course of technological advancement.

They would have even more to lose. I don't think you understand their
COMSEC mission.

-- At this point, I'm opting out. What I aimed to demonstrate, I've
demonstrated. Peace. Feel free to take the last word, if you like.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20251016/4d78c7d0/attachment.sig>