[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: spam closes Debian bugs!



On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 07:15:44PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 04:54:20PM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> >> Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> wrote:
> >> > Signing mails is work.
> >> 
> >> Then you clearly use broken tools. I'm sorry but with all the mailers
> >> I know, signing a mail is just clicking on a button or typing a
> >> shortcut, and then typing the passphrase.
> >
> > I hope for your sake that your passphrase is not just a single-letter
> > thingy.
> 
> I am not a fool. My passphrase is a _phrase_.

Good :-)

> > If it is, thanks for providing me with some inside information to
> > work on my web of trust; if it isn't, well, the most work in signing
> > *anything* is exactly in typing the passphrase. My gpg passphrase is
> > significantly longer than my 8-letter logon password; entering that
> > when sending a mail is what I call "work", even with the 60-second
> > timeout mutt gives me when signing a mail (since usually, it takes
> > me more than that time to prepare the mail.
> 
> How long do you need to type "I hope for your sake that your
> passphrase is not just a single-letter thingy"? 

Not long, but the two aren't really alike. Entering a passphrase easily
becomes a burden; if you have to do it a lot of times in sequence, it's
a pain.

Speaking from experience as the previous maintainer of the Linux Gazette
packages here (uploading a new version of lg-issue*, with minor changes,
took over two hours, which is one of the reasons I gave up maintenance
of those packages).

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: