Gah I hate Outlook which makes replying inline impossible :\
Outlook will indent but not add “> “ to quoted lines, so be aware of that as
you read this email (
On 3/6/17, 9:41 AM, "Werner Koch" <w...@gnupg.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:20, jeste...@microsoft.com said:
> I'm working on re-implementing GMime to use libgpgme (1.8.0 on Fedora
> 25) instead of using my own custom logic for fork()ing/exec()ing gpg &
Great, we like the use of the GPGME API. I guess GMime is not used by
Evolution ;-)
Yea, I haven’t been involved in Evolution development in ~10+ years at this
point… I think Evolution uses libNSS (Mozilla libs) for S/MIME, but for GMime,
I’d like to use gpgsm instead.
Which GnuPG and GPGME versions are you using?
I’m using gnupg 2.1.13 and gpgme 1.8.0
> For some reason, gpgme_op_sign() is returning GPG_ERR_NOT_IMPLEMENTED
That can have several reasons. I can't tell without having a log.
I’ll see what I can do about getting you that log…
> while gpgme_op_encrypt() is returning "Configuration error".
Does it work on the command line? I would suggested to put
"disable-crl-checks" into gpgsm.conf or even "disable-dirmngr". If that
works you need, you need to make sure that CRLs and intermediate
certificates can be downloaded. That may require to configure LDAP
access.
Adding “disable-crl-checks” to my gpgsm.conf fixed encryption.
That leaves signing and decrypting as both failing with “Not Implemented”.
It’s an improvement!
>>From what I can deduce by scouring the web for information, it seems
>>like NOT_IMPLEMENTED should never get returned unless I am using
>>options that just haven't been implemented yet but that doesn't seem
>>like it should be the case since I don't think I'm doing anything out
>>of the ordinary.
Reseting the context may also be a cause for this.
Sadly, resetting the context did not help (
> For encrypting, I am getting "Configuration error" which I'm also
> confused about because I don't know what configuration options could
> be causing this.
Probably dirmngr.conf. See above. What you should do is to enable
debugging: If you are using gnupg 2.1 you should put
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
log-file socket://
debug ipc
verbose
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
into {gpg-agent,gpgsm,dirmngr}.conf . With older versions use have to
use this (also work with 2.1, though):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
log-file socket:///home/USER/.gnupg/S.log
debug 1024
verbose
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
then fire up an xterm and run
watchgnupg --time-only --force ~/.gnupg/S.log
You can see this log here:
https://gist.github.com/jstedfast/38ab7fe65f0c769ba31bd5a807e2f374
and you see in real time what's going on at the gnupg level.
To debug run your program using
GPGME_DEBUG=4:/tmp/gpgme.h: ./testpg.
gpgme.log gives a pretty detailed listing. Feel free to forward it to
me. If you use a level 7 you will get a complete I/O listing.
That’s really useful, thanks!
You can see the gpgme log here:
https://gist.github.com/jstedfast/c9fa718ef524a73de02daacc142beccc
I spotted the fact that I was (incorrectly) using gpgme_op_decrypt_verify()
when I think I should be using gpgme_op_decrypt(), so I fixed that but I still
get “Not Implemented”.
I added a comment to the end of that gist to provide the new snippet that
gpgme.log contained after the “fix”.
> All I can think of is that perhaps there is some leftover state from
gpgme_op_import() or gpgme_op_export_ext() that is breaking the gpgme_op_sign()
when run at a later point?
Possible. I don't think we have good tests for this.
Thanks so much for your help,
Jeff
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
