Will I be disapproved of or get frowned upon a lot if I choose to deploy and use GnuPG without an encryption key? E.g. I generate keys manually and skip the encryption key entirely.
The reason is that I do not plan to receive encrypted communications with GPG mainly because of the lack of PFS, which feature almost everything else offers nowadays. Even the very this website comes with PFS. Not even mentioning the anecdotal inconvenience receiving encrypted emails out of blue. What was very good in 1991, isn't so good in 2019. (No offence though! It's just OpenPGP wasn't designed with PFS in mind.)
Well, considering the above I could have just moved on if not GnuPG misbehaving funnily if there's no encryption key, which makes me think if there could be an actual important technical reason I really should be getting myself an encryption key. Is there?
For example, given a known encryption-incapable public key, GPG reports an error and waits for more input indefinitely:
$ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.12 libgcrypt 1.8.4 $ gpg --recv-key 4AEE18F83AFDEB23 $ gpg -k 4AEE18F83AFDEB23 pub rsa2048 2017-08-16 [SC] 5DE3E0509C47EA3CF04A42D34AEE18F83AFDEB23 uid [ unknown] GitHub (web-flow commit signing) <email@example.com> $ touch example.txt $ gpg -ear firstname.lastname@example.org example.txt gpg: error retrieving 'email@example.com' via Local: Unusable public key
Else should I be using other means to announce that I don't want things encrypted in my name?