On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > it. Firepg kept telling me that the signature is not valid. Thinking > it was an issue with the extension per-se made a post about the same > in firepg & was consequently banned. Although there was no explanation
I don't know firepg so I can't help you here. What I can tell you is that gpg (1.4.*) and gpg2 (2.0.*) should be identical - it is actually the same code with glue to integrate into the entire gnupg-2 system. So the keys are supposed to be identical... ... but, depending on the version of libgcrypt you are using the list of suppoorted algorithms may be different. For example my gpg 1.4.7 gives me this list: Supported algorithms: Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB and gpg2 2.0.4 : Supported algorithms: Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ELG Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, TIGER192, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB A problem now would be the SHA224 algorithm which is not supported by gpg2 (or better, libgcrypt 1.2.4). To see why you have problems with your key, we need more details about the key and the failing signature. Shalom-Salam, Werner _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
