Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

on Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:53:02PM +0100, Joerg Johannes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: > > > > | > Not when using inline PGP sign

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: | At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the | > proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't | > make them th

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 08:33:03PM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | Am Sa, den 27.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 16:56: | > Joerg Johannes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > > Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having | > > to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Trey Sizemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:55, Kirk Strauser wrote: >> At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? >> >> Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions t

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 21:38, Kirk Strauser wrote: > Check out http://my.gnus.org/ - it's chock full of tutorials and > walkthroughs. Best of luck to you! I'll give it a try, thanks! -- Cheers, Trey --- "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously abou

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-04-01T02:19:44Z, Trey Sizemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would you be so kind as to point me to a resource for using Gnus/emacs > to send and receive mail? Check out http://my.gnus.org/ - it's chock full of tutorials and walkthroughs. Best of luck to you! -- Kirk Strauser pgp0

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:55, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? > > Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions to you included the per-group > configuration metho

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote: > Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I can cope :-), by connecting/disconnecting manually. But for the > > Windoze convertee, the requirement is for a clone of OE's > > "Send/Receive" button. > > But you're setting up the mach

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Hoskins writes: >> But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four >> line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. > > What does the "Send/Receive" button do that gpppon doesn't? I don't know what gpp

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 28 March 2004 12:21 pm, Werner Mahr wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. MÃrz 2004 21:19 schrieb Brad Sims: > > On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote: > > > Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? > > > > I /think/ one

Re: Inline PGP signatures

David writes: > If you have things configured to be sent immediately, your mail client > could be dialing everytime you send a mail, and if you are an active > participant on a list like this, your phone bill could send you to the > poor house. Not when local calls are unmetered, as the are in mos

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler wrote: Paul Johnson writes: No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. What is personal about asking if your statement was meant as a criticism of PPP? I don't think Paul meant it that way. If you are on dial-up, it can be a lot more economic to s

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Richard Hoskins writes: > But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four > line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. What does the "Send/Receive" button do that gpppon doesn't? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elm

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I can cope :-), by connecting/disconnecting manually. But for the > Windoze convertee, the requirement is for a clone of OE's > "Send/Receive" button. But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four line bash script started by clickin

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Johnson writes: >> No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. > > What is personal about asking if your statement was meant as a criticism of > PPP? No, no. I thought you meant I was criticizing you. No, PPP isn't a bad

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Paul Johnson writes: > No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. What is personal about asking if your statement was meant as a criticism of PPP? -- John Hasler You may treat this work as if it [EMAIL PROTECTED] were in the public domain. Danc

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 27. MÃrz 2004 21:19 schrieb Brad Sims: > On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote: > > Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? > > I /think/ one is for Woody and one is for Sarge, but as I play with Sid... >

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Johnson writes: >> Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, >> just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon >> kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. > > I wrote: >> Unles

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Paul Johnson writes: > Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, > just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon > kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. I wrote: > Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. Paul

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Paul Johnson writes: >> Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, >> just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon >> kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. > > Unless you config

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:28:30PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote: > Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) It has to be said that OE is "dialup-friendly". It only takes one > > click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and > > hang up again, all automatically, thus reducing

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Paul Johnson writes: > Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, > just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon > kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. -- John Hasler

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via >> pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator >> and the trivially simple to configure exim and you have arranged >> for y

Re: Inline PGP signatures

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Hoskins writes: >> diald. People still use that, right? > > No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via > pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator and the > trivially simple to configure exim and you h

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:11:42 -0800 > Bill Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In addition many of the > > people I correspond with use M$ Outlook which not only doesn't > > understand PGP-MIME but hides the body of the message

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Richard Hoskins writes: > diald. People still use that, right? No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator and the trivially simple to configure exim and you have arranged for your mail to be sent and received

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) It has to be said that OE is "dialup-friendly". It only takes one > click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and > hang up again, all automatically, thus reducing time spent online, > and the associated costs, to the absolute minimum. Las

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote: > Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? I /think/ one is for Woody and one is for Sarge, but as I play with Sid... Apt will get the one with the newest version as I understand it -- If Washington fears honest citizens a

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Am Sa, den 27.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 16:56: > Joerg Johannes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having > > to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. > > Well, obviously that claim isn't true if it can't handle PGP

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Incoming from Pigeon: > On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:26:10AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are > > > "unsafe", and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him > > > read the text o

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Joerg Johannes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: >> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: >> >> | > Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered val

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions to you included the per-group configuration method. As for the per-user changes: it seems that I abandoned tha

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:26:10AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are > > "unsafe", and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him > > read the text of the message. > > Why do I see a

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 27. MÃrz 2004 02:36 schrieb Brad Sims: > ## OpenGPG plugins ## > deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian binary/ > deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian testing/ Do I need both lines, or is one

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: > > | > Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. > | > | OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are > "unsafe", and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him > read the text of the message. Why do I see a Linux candidate? KDE is way more than up to the task for casual Windows us

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/gpg-signed-mail.html Very good comments. I like Karsten's style. -- .''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rumor is that there's a plugin for Outlook Express that enables it > to handle PGP-signed email correctly. I don't know whether this is > true, and if so how well it works; but Googling might help. You got me curious so I googled. Lo-and-behold, not on

Re: Inline PGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the >> proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but yo

Re: Inline PGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To make sure this doesn't happen, a lot of old groups cover their > ass with the draconian social custom of "no binaries of any type, > ever." As a result, the only PG

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to ask > about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a royal > butt-chewing in return. Since apparently I'm no longer welcome in that > group, I no longer have anyone to

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 26 March 2004 3:25 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > ... of course, if you want to do signatures or decrypt stuff with > PGP/MIME, it's a little trickier than that to make it work, because you > also need gpg-agent and a pinentry program, whic

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote: > Rumor is that there's a plugin for Outlook Express that enables it > to handle PGP-signed email correctly. I don't know whether this is > true, and if so how well it works; but Googling might help. refers to it

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

On Friday 26 March 2004 1:21 pm, Adam Funk wrote: > On Friday 26 March 2004 12:30, Alex Malinovich wrote: > > What you're seeing is the ASCII armored ('armoured' in the rest of > > the English speaking world outside of the US :) PGP signature. I > > don't know if there's a way to 'teach' evolution

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

On Friday 26 March 2004 12:30, Alex Malinovich wrote: > What you're seeing is the ASCII armored ('armoured' in the rest of the > English speaking world outside of the US :) PGP signature. I don't > know if there's a way to 'teach' evolution about them, but if there is > I've never found it. If you

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:11:42 -0800 Bill Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In addition many of the > people I correspond with use M$ Outlook which not only doesn't > understand PGP-MIME but hides the body of the message when PGP-MIME > attachments are present. Huh. That's odd. It's the cano

Re: Inline PGP signatures

es sense. I filter my feed by group name and message size, not the presence of attachments, and didn't realize that some people did. Still, every newsgroup charter I've found that mentions attachments at all makes an explicit exception for PGP signatures. It was my understanding that th

Re: Inline PGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:42:20 + Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Andreas Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > And some clients are so broken that they don't even sho

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the > proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't > make them think.) The only solution I know of is to configure your client to use rec

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Andreas Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As far as I know evolution does not support the old (and very common) > > inline PGP/GPG signatures. Instead it only supports attatched GPG/PGP > > signa

Re: Inline PGP signatures

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2004-03-26T16:52:55Z, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. > > The only reason I ever use inli

Re: Inline PGP signatures

oing physics at major research institutions. Maybe they got sick of it and left (like I did). But if any of them are still there, they wouldn't be frightened by PGP signatures. So you might give it another try, and ignore the bellyachers; if they're that clueless about computers, they&

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Friday 26 March 2004 12:49 pm, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2004-03-26T19:40:04Z, Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to > ask about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a > royal butt-chewing in return.

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-03-26T19:47:01Z, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not only was that in sci.physics, but it seemed like nobody wanted to > believe Kirk that alt.sci.physics even existed. =) Hah! I'd forgotten about that. Choice quote: "I really don't think there is any such group as

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-03-26T19:40:04Z, Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please tell me that the people involved are in alt.sci.physics, and not > sci.physics. Sorry. :-/ > If the latter . . .man, that place has gone unbelievably downhill since > the mid-90's. Unfortunately, that was my first cont

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Friday 26 March 2004 12:40 pm, Chris Metzler wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 > > Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See this > > thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to > > understand that a PGP signature is not a virus: > > Please tell me that the peop

Re: Inline PGP signatures

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See this > thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to understand > that a PGP signature is not a virus: Please tell me that the people involved are in alt.sci.physics, and not sci.physics. If the lat

Re: Inline PGP signatures

At 2004-03-26T16:52:55Z, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. The only reason I ever use inline signatures is that members of some newsgroups absolutely have a conniption when they see attachments. See this thread where otherw

Re: Inline PGP signatures

Andreas Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As far as I know evolution does not support the old (and very common) > inline PGP/GPG signatures. Instead it only supports attatched GPG/PGP > signatures (PGP/MIME). Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. &

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | > Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. | | OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, | and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. Up

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

Hello Joerg Johannes (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote: > Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 04:52: >> Joerg Johannes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> Errh, your sig starts with "- -- \n". Bad example. Go fix it. >> >> Not

Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

's generally considered polite to put in a "-- " > > >> (that is, dash dash space newline) on a line by itself. See my signature > > >> for an example. > > >> > > >> See also: http://www.newbie.org/ > > >> > > >> - -- &g

Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]

dash dash space newline) on a line by itself. See my signature > >> for an example. > >> > >> See also: http://www.newbie.org/ > >> > >> - -- > > Errh, your sig starts with "- -- \n". Bad example. Go fix it. > > > > joerg

Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:28:16PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Pigeon writes: > > Should I file a wishlist bug asking for the mutt docs to explain what > > "outlook compatible" actually entails? > > Of course. Include a patch. Done! -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp

Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt

Pigeon writes: > Should I file a wishlist bug asking for the mutt docs to explain what > "outlook compatible" actually entails? Of course. Include a patch. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subje

Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:37:57PM +, Pigeon wrote: > ... how does one configure mutt to produce an inline-signed >message with a "Content-Type: text/plain;" header instead of >"...application/pgp;...format=text"? The otherwise very comprehensive >documentation when you hit F1 g

Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt

I am subscribed to a couple of Yahoo mailing lists, "bjh" for fans of Barclay James Harvest and "progressivemusicforum" for general discussion of progressive rock. The Yahoo list server strips all attachments from mail to the "bjh" list - including

Re: GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures

LeVA wrote: [snip] > And when I Save the attached signature, and run cat signature.asc | > gpg --import, I get this messages: > gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. > gpg: Total number processed: 0 If those files are really data signatures, then this is to be expected. Do you mean keys or key signa

Re: GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures

Incoming from LeVA: > > I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the > GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg. There's a discussion going on in debian-security on this. Suffice to say, some mailers use deprecated/obsolete mime tags, and som

GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures

Hello! I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg. There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail writes this in the messages window: "The message is signed, but the validity o

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:07:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:21:53PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 > > Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add > > | "keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve". > > >

Re: PGP Signatures

on Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Friends, > > forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with > PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of > your signature? They just loo

Re: PGP Signatures

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: >> Friends, >> >> forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with >> PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having

Re: PGP Signatures

Thanks to all for your help. Indeed, options or a conf are both valuable after a test. mess-mate On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:10:24 -0500 "Robert L. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | | Move the file from .gnupg/options to .gnupg/gpg.conf, they changed the | location of the file a bit back. |

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:28:31AM -0500, Robert L. Harris wrote: > Make one. No, the preferred file this is in is .gnupg/options. Having two different options files *will* be a pain in the ass. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debia

Re: PGP Signatures

Move the file from .gnupg/options to .gnupg/gpg.conf, they changed the location of the file a bit back. May want to try different keyservers (comment out the gatech, etc. Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:28:31 -0500 > "Robert L. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:28:31 -0500 "Robert L. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | | Make one. | | Here's mine: | # So we can work with pgp keys | force-v3-sigs | # To deal with mailer and >From lines | escape-from-lines | # we only need to do this once while the gpg process is usin

Re: PGP Signatures

This one time, at band camp, mess-mate said: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 > Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add > | "keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve". > | > ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? > here are the files I have

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:21:53PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 > Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add > | "keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve". > > ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? For ~/.gnupg/gn

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? Go look at the comments in your .gnupg/options -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a sy

Re: PGP Signatures

Make one. Here's mine: # So we can work with pgp keys force-v3-sigs # To deal with mailer and >From lines escape-from-lines # we only need to do this once while the gpg process is using the ring lock-once # Our options keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve include-disabled include-

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 | > Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | > | > But the

Re: PGP Signatures

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 > Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > | > But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added > | > to your o

Re: PGP Signatures

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | > But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | > to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | > mess-mate | | U

Re: PGP Signatures

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: > But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added > to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. > mess-mate Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from the keyserver for you

Re: PGP Signatures

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:27 -0500 Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: | > forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with | > PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PG

Re: PGP Signatures

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:27 -0500 Seneca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: | > forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with | > PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PG

Re: PGP Signatures

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: > forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with > PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of > your signature? They just look like a string of characters that c

Re: PGP Signatures

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: > Friends, > > forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with > PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of > your signature? They just look like a string of

Re: PGP Signatures

On Monday 27 Jan 2003 2:51 pm, debian parisc wrote: > It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 > (I'm at work), that they have no significance. If you are using pgp you can verify the authenticity of the message - i.e. it comes from who the 'from' line says, rathe

PGP Signatures

Friends, forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the

Re: correct gpg/pgp signatures (why reject a .changes file?)

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:18:28PM -0200, andrej hocevar wrote: > Hello, > recently, I was trying to upload a package of mine to a server and > got this message in return: [...] > Is it because I'm simply not allowed to do that (as not being a > debian developer) or is there something I can do abou

correct gpg/pgp signatures (why reject a .changes file?)

Hello, recently, I was trying to upload a package of mine to a server and got this message in return: PGP/GnuPG signature check failed on sumo_1.0-5.2_i386.changes ERROR: Header line added to ASCII armor: "Hash: SHA1" ASCII armor

Re: About PGP signatures

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" writes: > > > Request: I'd like a list of clients supporting RFC 2015 attachments and > > the plugins necessary to support this. Of particular interest: > > All Windows-based clients which support MIME only by

Re: About PGP signatures

"Karsten M. Self" writes: > Request: I'd like a list of clients supporting RFC 2015 attachments and > the plugins necessary to support this. Of particular interest: All Windows-based clients which support MIME only by translation at gateways (for example, Lotus Notes, and probably MS-Exchange-

Re: About PGP signatures

on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:57:17PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:43:47PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > > > get a real mail client that supports RFCs. the relevant RFC is 2015 > > > > i recommend mutt > > Supporting RFCs is fine and should be en

Re: About PGP signatures

At 01:59 24.05.2001, you wrote: elsewhere, I don't think anything else can verify mutt's attached PGP/MIME signatures. Bad luck, but Eudora with PGP installed can. It won't even open the attachment without getting the key from a keyserver or already knowing it. Never underestimate Windoze as

Re: About PGP signatures

> On 24 May 2001 14:57:12 +0400, Ilya Martynov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Ilya> I thoght that Gnus itself doesn't support PGP at all. It needs Ilya> Mailcrypt for PGP. And mailcrypt seems to support only embeded Ilya> sigs. Or am I wrong? You're wrong. 8^)= The version of Gnus in CVS (Oort Gn

Re: About PGP signatures

Noah> Supporting RFCs is fine and should be encouraged, but from what Noah> I've seen there is not another mail reader in existance that can Noah> verify mutt's attached signatures. john> Just to add to the list, the CVS version of Gnus handles PGP/MIME as john> well. I thoght that Gnus itself

Re: About PGP signatures

> On Wed, 23 May 2001 19:57:17 -0400, "Noah L. Meyerhans" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: Noah> Supporting RFCs is fine and should be encouraged, but from what Noah> I've seen there is not another mail reader in existance that can Noah> verify mutt's attached signatures. Just to add to the

  1   2   >