If it is not too long (too many characters), try 'nasty': http://www.vanheusden.com/nasty/
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:10:20PM +0530, Thutika, Srinivas (ODC - Satyam) wrote: > Hi, > > After creation of the key I forgot the pasword for that key. > > Is there any way that I can get the password again. > > Regards, > srini > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:55 PM > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15 > > > Send Gnupg-users mailing list submissions to > gnupg-users@gnupg.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gnupg-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (David Srbecky) > 2. Re: validate_key_list failed (Mark H. Wood) > 3. Re: Proof of email ownership (Werner Koch) > 4. Re: Multiple self signatures (David Shaw) > 5. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Werner Koch) > 6. Re: validate_key_list failed (Janusz A. Urbanowicz) > 7. Re: Extra information in public key (Mark H. Wood) > 8. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content > encoding alone, how?) (Greg Sabino Mullane) > 9. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Zeljko Vrba) > 10. removing revoked or expired signatures (Folkert van Heusden) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:59:15 +0200 > From: David Srbecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Thomas Kuehne wrote: > > Alphax schrieb: > > > > > >>Thomas Kuehne wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in > >>>>OutlookExpress? AAAARRRGGGG ..... > >> > >>Sorry, I've never used Lookout. > > > > > > The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post > > "Re: Extra information in public key" to this list. > > > > If the MIME declaration is change from > > > > multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ... > > > > to > > > > multipart/mixed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ... > > > > OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without > > encryption plugins. > > Sorry for that. I do not know that happened. (Could it be some misuse of > "Edit as New..."?) > > I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However, > MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the > signature in the mail headers. > > David Srbecky > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 254 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/a604ffac/signature-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:22:33 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark H. Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed > To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users@gnupg.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Me, too. :-/ I completely emptied my public keyring, one key at a time, > looking for the damage and never found it. Eventually I renamed the empty > file away and built a new one, and now I have no more trouble. > > I don't know whether a keyring file is supposed to shrink when substantial > numbers of keys are removed, but it never did. > > - -- > Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Open-source executable: $0.00. Source: $0.00 Control: priceless! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/ > > iD8DBQFC+K4ds/NR4JuTKG8RAgFDAJ0dKzS38oA8+RL9lM9NVgu/0v67wQCffQfe > 28f7fTe5Gv9eMOURoIdnrE0= > =Q/GM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:22:58 +0200 > From: Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Proof of email ownership > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:34:33 +0200, Marco d'Itri said: > > > How does this interact with DKIM? > > DKIM does not work. For example, their canonicalization is broken and > one can easily fake a MIME message. > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:19:58 -0400 > From: David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Multiple self signatures > To: Tobias Eichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:33:24PM +0200, Tobias Eichert wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have multiple self signatures within my key and I haven't > > found a reason yet. I usually don't self-sign my key several > > times (well, at least I'm not aware of it). :) > > > > > http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0 > x7E9154BFDA817013 > > > > How can I prevent this? > > You can't, really. Every time you change the expiration date of your > key, or change your preferences you issue a new self-signature. The > keyservers don't delete old ones (they can't), so self sigs pile up > after a while. They are harmless. > > If it bothers you, do --edit-key and use the "clean" command. > > David > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:27:01 +0200 > From: Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP > To: Thomas Kuehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:40 +0200, Thomas Kuehne said: > > > OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without > > encryption plugins. > > Use a MIME compliant MUA and not such a spam/DoS/virus vector. > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:53:30 +0200 > From: "Janusz A. Urbanowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:33:07PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:15:47PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > After adding some keys recently, I always get: > > [snip] > > > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes) > > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet > > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring > > > gpg: failed to rebuild keyring cache: invalid keyring > > > gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model > > > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes) > > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet > > > gpg: keydb_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring > > > gpg: validate_key_list failed > > > > > > And the trustdb is not updated, because on the next run > > > I get the same error. > > > > > > How can I fix this? > > > Or how can I find out which key it is, so I can remove it > > > (as workaround)? > > > > FWIW, I've been getting the same with the FreeBSD port of gnupg-1.4.2. > > I've reverted to using 1.4.1 for the present. > > it is the same kind of errors that I repoted an hour ago on -devel with > subject 'keyring thrashed' - if it helps. > > Alex > -- > mors ab alto > 0x46399138 > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:37:39 -0500 (EST) > From: "Mark H. Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Extra information in public key > To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users@gnupg.org> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Srbecky wrote: > [snip] > > And the content might look like this: > > > > First name=David > > Last name=Srbecky > > Country=Czech Republic > > City=Usti nad Labem > > Telephone=+65 536 1024 > > ICQ=#128-256-512 > > Homepage url=http://www.gnupg.org/ > > Prefers encrypted mail=true > > Prefers signed mail=true > > Preferred encapsulation=MIME > > PGP key url=http://www.gnupg.org/dsrbecky/pgp.key > [snip] > > So, what do you think? > > I think this looks like a job for a directory service. About half of > those attributes are already defined in some X.500 schema and could easily > be dished up via LDAP, which any recent MUA ought to understand already. > Using a directory service for directory service sounds better to me than > overloading key subpackets. How about just one simple record (a URI?) to > provide the linkage from the key to the directory object? (I'd be very > much surprised if there isn't an attribute ID allocated for PGP keys > already, which can effectively provide the reverse "link".) > > - -- > Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Open-source executable: $0.00. Source: $0.00 Control: priceless! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/ > > iD8DBQFC+LGps/NR4JuTKG8RAvxYAJ9nu1hCD/xjiVUr1Y/uRFvQZZ2M/QCcD6KS > 5bpCKFT7eKf+nOrhBV0kL5g= > =yyg7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:26:28 -0000 > From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content > encoding alone, how?) > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >> * My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose > >> systems bounce (or discard!) attachments. > > > Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very few > > that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments > > then your message is still intact, just unsigned. > > I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with > attachments." > > > * It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a > > webpage) while keeping the signature. > > > Keeping it, perhaps. Keeping it intact, not so much. Any > > reformatting done by a web browser (which is perfectly legitimate for > > the browser to do) will break the signature, of course. If you force > > the formatting with <pre> tags, you've made a concession which allows > > the MIME version to work equally well. > > Well, of course one uses a PRE tag, that was implied. And I don't see > how the MIME version works equally well - how would you verify a > webpage dump of a MIME stream? > > > I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the > > benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a generally > > applicable standard. The ability to sign attachments gracefully isn't > > the only plus, for example, but that alone seems to be enough to make > > MIME a clear winner. > > I'm not arguing giving up MIME at all - there are situations where it is > indispensable, and I even use it on some occasions. But I did want to > counter the "inline is evil and should never ever be used by anyone" > argument. :) > > - -- > Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508091124 > https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEARECAAYFAkL4yukACgkQvJuQZxSWSshZfACgic4eyzK3o/5eUgaplSqJ7r2/ > 4KsAn1O91MNfSYdjHnnc5C3D5yV90+P7 > =X/XW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:01:40 +0200 > From: Zeljko Vrba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP > To: Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > > I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with > > attachments." > > > I can say that I've worked in such company. Oddly enough, the server > seemed to strip only the application/pgp, or whatever the MIME type is, > replacing it with some bogus MS-TNEF attachment. Other attachments got > through just fine... > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 254 bytes > Desc: OpenPGP digital signature > Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/798e9c90/signature-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:22:57 +0200 > From: Folkert van Heusden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: removing revoked or expired signatures > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hi, > > How can I remove revoked and/or expired signatures from my public key? > E.g. keys like these: > sig X CA57AD7C 2005-07-15 PGP Global Directory Verification Key > > > Folkert van Heusden > > -- > Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com! > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > > > End of Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15 > ******************************************* > -------------------------------------------------------- > > If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the > sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or > redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this > e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/ > -------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users Folkert van Heusden -- Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
