On 2012-08-08 2:20 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 07/08/12 15:18, Jay Litwyn wrote: >> I submitted this revokation certificate to a couple of servers and >> they said it was malformed, >> and I had trouble guessing how to generate anything different. So, I >> imported the revokation certificate, exported the whole key, and >> submitted that. It worked. > Now, I haven't ever revoked a key, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is how > it > is supposed to work. After all, the revocation certificate is just a special > type of signature. You don't upload signatures to a keyserver, you upload keys > with signatures to a keyserver. The keyserver then merges in all the > signatures > it has on that key. As long as the signature names what it signs, I do not see why a revokation certificate should not work on its own. It does when I import a revokation certificate to my own key. >> gpg (GnuPG) 1.2.2 >> Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > That's old. Like, really old. Why do you use such an old version? I had trouble finding a binary of anything more recent, and I had trouble configuring the 2.x version that I installed with enigmail to use pgp2 and support IDEA. In fact, I've forgotten where the configuration file for 2.x is, and it still is not configured with IDEA support. A lot more keys are on my keyring for v2.0.17. > As for PGP 2.6.3, I believe the idea (IDEA? :) is that if you really still > want > to use that, you have to be prepared for some struggles to get all sides > communicating. That's the price you pay. > > Peter. > I have trouble enough getting any correspondent to use cryptography when they should be using it. OH...I was going to revoke _this_ key, and because gpg 2.0.17 skips v.3 signatures, I still will.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
