Re: Package review status

2002-09-26 Thread Robert Collins
For the archives: there is no bug with the cygwin gpg - the problem with my gpg key is with the keyservers. Apparently the keyservers choke on gpg keys with multiple sub-keys.. which mine has. So grab it direct. Cheers, Rob (Really the end of the thread now). signature.asc Description: Thi

Re: Package review status

2002-09-26 Thread Robert Collins
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 09:52, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Actually, I would first suggest taking this off list. If it turns out > to be a cygwin problem then you can discuss things here. > > I think that speculating about someone's personal gpg keys is remarkably > off-topic for this list otherw

Re: Package review status

2002-09-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:02:41AM +0200, Volker Quetschke wrote: >Hi! >>>So your ID from the keyservers is: FBD3EB8E, but your mail is signed from >>>KeyID C2C97282. (I don't find this ID on the keyserver) >>> >>>So, who wrote this mail for you? ;-) >>Me... >I don't doubt that, but I get: > >$ gp

Re: Package review status

2002-09-25 Thread Volker Quetschke
Hi! >>So your ID from the keyservers is: FBD3EB8E, but your mail is signed from >>KeyID C2C97282. (I don't find this ID on the keyserver) >> >>So, who wrote this mail for you? ;-) > Me... I don't doubt that, but I get: $ gpg --search-keys [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg: searching for "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" f

Re: Package review status

2002-09-25 Thread Robert Collins
On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 21:27, Volker Quetschke wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Right, well I'll happily run generate checksums of what I download, and > > if the poster to here posts the expected checksums, in a gpg signed > > message, then we can be fairly sure that whomever sent the email, > > created t

Re: Package review status

2002-09-25 Thread Volker Quetschke
Hi! Sorry, replied to the wrong mailing list in the first place. > Hi Robert, > >> Right, well I'll happily run generate checksums of what I download, and >> if the poster to here posts the expected checksums, in a gpg signed >> message, then we can be fairly sure that whomever sent the email, >

Re: Package review status

2002-09-25 Thread Volker Quetschke
Hi Robert, > Right, well I'll happily run generate checksums of what I download, and > if the poster to here posts the expected checksums, in a gpg signed > message, then we can be fairly sure that whomever sent the email, > created the package files. > > Generating trust in a specific GPG signat