Re: PGP-Schluessel auf keys.openpgp.org?

Hi, sorry for this german mail which i sent to debian-user by mistake. (I was asked by the xorriso maintainer of another distro to upload my public PGP key to the keyserver which the distro uses. Hopefully i was able to fulfill that wish and did not publish any secrets of mine.) Have a nice day

Re: PGP-Schluessel auf keys.openpgp.org?

Hi, > siehst Du eine Möglichkeit Deinen PGP-Schlüssel auf keys.openpgp.org zu > verwalten und die E-Mail-Adresse freizugeben? Ich habe die Ausgabe von gpg --export scdbac...@gmx.net hochgeladen. (Ich haette ja gerne inspiziert, was in dem Ausgabefile steht, aber soweit bringt mich "man gpg" nic

Re: PGP: difference between Kleopatra and Kgpg, both from KDE

Marco Möller wrote: > So, unfortunately I am still in need to find more information about the > two different (or in the end not different?) GUI tools concerning their > PGP functionality. > Focus on kgpg for now and start with PGP and OpenGPG (gnupg) https://www.openpgp.org/ There are also man

Re: PGP: difference between Kleopatra and Kgpg, both from KDE

On 31.05.21 22:57, deloptes wrote: apt-cache show kleopatra apt-cache show kgpg I think the above parts of the package description explains quite well the use cases. With kleopatra you manage certificates in KDE (such like SSL) With Kgpg you manage GPG keys and you can encrypt/decrypt GU

Re: PGP: difference between Kleopatra and Kgpg, both from KDE

On Lu, 31 mai 21, 22:57:26, deloptes wrote: > > gnupg is the mother of all open source pgp stuff. In fact you must know that > PGP is the commercial implementation of a standard for symetric encryption > (I hope I am not wrong in my wording while citing from memory) PGP supports asymmetric encryp

Re: PGP: difference between Kleopatra and Kgpg, both from KDE

Marco Möller wrote: > Could someone explain for a raw beginner concerning the usage of PGP the > difference between Kleopatra and Kgpg, what the typical work case is for > the one and the other, what important feature the one and the other is > missing? > apt-cache show kleopatra Description-e

Re: PGP Email Client

On 2018-07-08 18:18, HP Garcia wrote: Can anyone recommend an email client that can handle PGP? I'm currently using Claws-Mail 3.14.1 Thanks in advance roundcube with enigma plugin dunno if it is working mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31 0x4BFEBB31.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.a

Re: PGP Email Client

On 18-07-08 14:42:54, Jude DaShiell wrote: If you can live with the configuration mutt or neomutt can fill the bill. I can never truly recommend mutt to people who aren't used to terminal apps. That said, it's a great piece of software and the PGP handling in particular is really nice with

Re: PGP Email Client

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, HP Garcia wrote: > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 13:18:25 > From: HP Garcia > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: PGP Email Client > Resent-Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 17:18:45 + (UTC) > Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org > > Can anyone recommend an email client that can

Re: PGP Email Client

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 10:18:25 -0700, HP Garcia wrote: >Can anyone recommend an email client that can handle PGP? I'm currently >using Claws-Mail 3.14.1 > Why not Claws-Mail? With the correct plugins (claws-mail-pgpinline or claws-mail-pgpmime) that should be packaged in Debian it handles pgp just f

Re: PGP Email Client

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 10:18:25 -0700 HP Garcia wrote: Hello HP, >Can anyone recommend an email client that can handle PGP? I'm currently >using Claws-Mail 3.14.1 CM; Install the relevant plugin(s) and you're ready. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad

Re: PGP Email Client

On 7/8/2018 7:18 PM, HP Garcia wrote: Can anyone recommend an email client that can handle PGP? I'm currently using Claws-Mail 3.14.1 https://www.claws-mail.org/plugin.php?plugin=gpg Thunderbird with enigmail. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/digitally-signing-and-encrypting-messages -

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

s. keeling writes: > grave bugs of gnupg-doc... -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > s. keeling writes: > > Spots is dead. What do I do now to update that to my present real-world > > situation, or do I even really have to? I've spent many hours on the > > manpage among others. > > Have you read the _GNU Privacy Handbook_ that is included in

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

s. keeling writes: > Spots is dead. What do I do now to update that to my present real-world > situation, or do I even really have to? I've spent many hours on the > manpage among others. Have you read the _GNU Privacy Handbook_ that is included in the gnupg-doc package? You probably don't want

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:21:09AM +0200, s. keeling wrote: > John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > s. keeling writes: > > > Can we expand on that? I have my passphrase. I use the key all the > > > time. It's tied to my old, now defunct, ISP. You mean I can generate a > > > revocation key, then

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > s. keeling writes: > > Can we expand on that? I have my passphrase. I use the key all the > > time. It's tied to my old, now defunct, ISP. You mean I can generate a > > revocation key, then generate a new, more accurately tied key? > > What do you mean by "

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

s. keeling writes: > Can we expand on that? I have my passphrase. I use the key all the > time. It's tied to my old, now defunct, ISP. You mean I can generate a > revocation key, then generate a new, more accurately tied key? What do you mean by "tied"? You can edit the key and add, delete or

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

Karl O. Pinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 07/06/2008 08:36:13 AM, John W Foster wrote: > > I have over the years established several PGP public keys that are no > > longer valid due to expired e-mail addresses. I did not think at the > > time they were created that I needed an expiration date in t

Re: PGP Keys Expiration

On 07/06/2008 08:36:13 AM, John W Foster wrote: I have over the years established several PGP public keys that are no longer valid due to expired e-mail addresses. I did not think at the time they were created that I needed an expiration date in thm. FWIW, IIRC accepted best practice is to gen

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/08/08 06:17, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 11:03:15AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> God doesn't like Kiwis? > > Which god? FSM, of course! - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "Kittens give Morbo gas. In lighter news, th

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:17:47 +1200 > > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The weird thing is, it works for other people. Googling on the radix64 > > > > Including me; I impor

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 01:05:14PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:18:01 +1200 > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Chris, > > > Are you running etch? > > No, Lenny here. GnuPG reports it's version 1.4.6. Version: 1.4.6-2 for me on etch. Although, it seems

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:18:01 +1200 Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Chris, > Are you running etch? No, Lenny here. GnuPG reports it's version 1.4.6. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" You're a sid

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:34PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > How does your DNS server resolve subkeys.pgp.net? I see five different > IP addresses, with preference given to either 213.239.206.174 or > 64.71.173.107. Try if you still have this problem when you specify one > of these IPs as the

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:17:47 +1200 > Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Chris, > > > The weird thing is, it works for other people. Googling on the radix64 > > Including me; I imported all three of the keys you ment

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 11:03:15AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > God doesn't like Kiwis? Which god? > But seriously, have you tried the verbose option? Yes. > > P.S. Also happens to keys: C02440B8 73CDA455 > > They all work for me... > > $ gpg -v --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 73CDA455

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > How does your DNS server resolve subkeys.pgp.net? I see five different Follow up to my last fup; no, maradns isn't the solution, sorry. Using the IPs works, DNS times out apparently. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advance

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 02:17:47 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > [...] > > > Sorry to jump in mid thread, but since this issue has popped up I > > thought I'd mention a problem I've been having. > > > > $ gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 330C4

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 02:17:47 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: [...] > Sorry to jump in mid thread, but since this issue has popped up I > thought I'd mention a problem I've been having. > > $ gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 330C4A75 > gpg: requesting key 330C4A75 from hkp server sub

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 02:17:47 +1200 Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello Chris, > The weird thing is, it works for other people. Googling on the radix64 Including me; I imported all three of the keys you mentioned without problems. Sorry, but I don't know enough about GPG & the serve

Re: pgp import problem (was Re: [SOLVED] Re: Problems with Gnome appearance.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/07/08 09:17, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 01:45:47PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:41:08 +0200 >> Jochen Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hello Jochen, >> >>> $ gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --rec

Re: pgp key servers (was Re: Suspend not working)

> > > >Or like yours? > > > > > > [application/pgp-signature (No public key to verify the signature)] > > Signature made at Sun 06 Apr 2008 04:47:48 PM EDT > > No public key to verify the signature > > Key fingerprint: B51408D89FF9A76D > > Cannot find user ID for this key. > > I think you a

Re: PGP Key after new install

On 4/17/07, Michael Pobega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How do I go about retaining my GPG/PGP key after a reinstall of Debian? I used to have it so that my GPG key would automatically ask me to sign when replying to any email, but now I don't have my GPG key anymore. Should I generate a new key

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/30/07 18:03, Paul Johnson wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: >> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 07:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: >>> On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote: Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [snip] > Therein lies the rub of any ISP. ISPs suck a

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 00:37:37 -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: >On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 04:01 +, s. keeling wrote: >> Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that >> > are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 07:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote: >> > Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that >> >> are

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote: > > Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that > >> are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are responding > >> terribly, horrifically sl

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

Greg Folkert wrote: > I have Comcastic! Meh... crappy. I only get 1100KB/sec from kernel.org > and giganews.com. Is that a typo? 1100KBps = 1.1MBps = 8.8Mbps For 9Mbps I'll put up with almost anything---after all, a T1 is only 1.544 Mbps. On AT&T [A]DSL, I generally get 130KBps = 1.04Mbp

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 07:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote: > > Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that > >> are typically used (MITs and the

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/29/07 22:01, s. keeling wrote: > Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that >> are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are responding >> terribly, horrifically sl

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: >> Who's your provider? > > Formerly pgp.mit.edu and keys.pgp.com > > Now subkeys.pgp.net. > > I now am getting no delays since the change. I don't understand the > difference from (pgp.mit.edu and keys.pgp.com) to subkeys.pgp.n

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 04:01 +, s. keeling wrote: > Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that > > are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are responding > > terribly, horrifically slow. If they respond at

Re: PGP Keyservers being glacially slow, lately

Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Has anyone noticed that as of about 3 weeks ago, that keyservers that > are typically used (MITs and the other usual candidates) are responding > terribly, horrifically slow. If they respond at all, timing out is > becoming more and more frequent. Nope:

Re: PGP Keys on packages

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:50:49 -0500 Tom Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm a little tired of all these messages on PGP keys missing or not missing > for > packages. > > How do I get the ones that are missing? > or > How do I make the messages go away and revert to the pre-secure approach?

Re: PGP key retrieval in mutt

On 2003-05-27 14:47, Nicolas Kratz wrote: > Well, it only retrieves unknown keys. Which usually means a slight delay > while processing a new key, if the key is known, processing is instant. > > If you only want to download selected keys, your best bet is to do it > manually, unless someone comes

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 look like a string of

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 PGP as part of >> your signature? The

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 PGP as part of | > your

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 PGP as part of | > your

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 could have > been

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 characters that coul

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

RE: pgp on Woody

[jeremy@MERCURY:pts/4:~]$ apt-cache show gnupg Package: gnupg Priority: standard Section: utils Installed-Size: 2424 Maintainer: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: i386 Version: 1.0.6-3 Replaces: gpg-rsa, gpg-rsaref Provides: gpg-rsa, gpg-rsaref Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libgdbmg1, zl

Re: pgp on Woody

Mike M wrote: I need to install pgp on a Woody system. I went to dselect and did a search on "pgp" and did not find a package. I assume pgp is not installed because "man pgp" has no entry, and $ find / -iname "*pgp*" did not turn up anything interesting. I did find a Debian package descriptio

Re: pgp not verifying sigs

on Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:29:47PM +0300, Aigars Mahinovs insinuated: > Hello, > > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:43:57 -0400, Nori Heikkinen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sorry, i meant to say that i've also signed my key. i also noted > > that i'm getting this problem from people whose keys i've signed.

Re: pgp not verifying sigs

Hello, On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 08:43:57 -0400, Nori Heikkinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sorry, i meant to say that i've also signed my key. i also noted that > i'm getting this problem from people whose keys i've signed. any > further ideas? IIRC maximum trust level changed recently from fully t

Re: pgp not verifying sigs

on Sat, 26 Oct 2002 12:07:43AM -0700, Paul Johnson insinuated: > On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:02:38AM -0400, Nori Heikkinen wrote: > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri Oct 25 16:27:47 2002) --] > > gpg: Signature made Fri Oct 25 16:26:47 2002 EDT using DSA key ID 11E030F1 > > gpg: Good signa

Re: pgp not verifying sigs

On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:02:38AM -0400, Nori Heikkinen wrote: > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri Oct 25 16:27:47 2002) --] > gpg: Signature made Fri Oct 25 16:26:47 2002 EDT using DSA key ID 11E030F1 > gpg: Good signature from "Nori Heikkinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > gpg: a

Re: PGP key signing parties

On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:04:41PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > i find myself often explaining GPG, the web of trust, and public key > cryptography as people rarely know the details and they aren't all > that complicated. Darxus usually just points people to -> http://www.phillylinux.org/keys/

Re: PGP key signing parties

also sprach Leconte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.21.1742 +0200]: > *are these parties as formal as they're supposed to be (for > instance, are the two forms of picture IDs essential, or is there > some leeway ?) they are not that formal, in fact usually pretty personal and lax. i always require a

Re: pgp

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:48:28PM -0400, Oi Yan wrote: | Hi all | | I installed pgp but don't know how to exchange the | public key and use in email Do you mean gpg (aka 'gnupg')? I just learned how to do this 2 days ago. It really is simple! To publish your key just run gpg --keyserver

Re: pgp

* Oi Yan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020426 13:17]: > Hi all > > I installed pgp but don't know how to exchange the > public key and use in email I don't think it will be very straightforward using a web-based email client like Yahoo unless the client webapp includes specific support for it. I do recom

Re: PGP & Mutt?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 08:04:09PM -0500, Rohan Deshpande wrote: > Hey again, > > Thanks for the tips so far, but now when I try to use PGP and mutt, it > keeps saying (for other peoples messages) that it can't verify PGP > because of missing public k

Re: PGP & Mutt?

On 0, Rohan Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey again, > > Thanks for the tips so far, but now when I try to use PGP and mutt, it > keeps saying (for other peoples messages) that it can't verify PGP > because of missing public keys... is there something I haven't > configured? Thanks for t

Re: PGP & Mutt?

Hey again, Thanks for the tips so far, but now when I try to use PGP and mutt, it keeps saying (for other peoples messages) that it can't verify PGP because of missing public keys... is there something I haven't configured? Thanks for the help! :). -Rohan * Tom Cook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >

Re: PGP & Mutt?

On 0, Jerome Acks Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:13:12PM -0500, Rohan Deshpande wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Upon reading a lot of these messages on the debian user list, I get a > > lot of errors saying mailcap doesn't have an entry for > > application/pgp-signature,

Re: PGP & Mutt?

On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 09:13:12PM -0500, Rohan Deshpande wrote: > Hi there, > > Upon reading a lot of these messages on the debian user list, I get a > lot of errors saying mailcap doesn't have an entry for > application/pgp-signature, so i finally decided to figure out what this > pgp thing is.

Re: PGP

On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 01:49:55PM -0600, Ray Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > When trying to create a new pgp key using pgp -kg it goes through the process > and then tries to create the key I get the error. > Can't create output file '/home/ray/.pgp/secring.pgp > Keygen error. > Any though

Re: pgp vs. mutt

On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:18:46AM -0400, Mike Werner wrote: > If you want to have gpg/mutt to *not* verify messages, you can shut it off > by putting the line: > > set pgp_verify_sig = no holy cow, sahib, that was The Answer i sought. come next year -- or next week -- when i look back on m

Re: pgp vs. mutt

will trillich wrote: > well someday i may find this fascinating, but for the moment > i'd really like to just have it percolate in 'run silent, run > deep' mode. > now, i get more verbosity than ever (see above) but i'll have > a look to see if i can give gpg a 'shaddap' option... If you want to

Re: pgp vs. mutt

well someday i may find this fascinating, but for the moment i'd really like to just have it percolate in 'run silent, run deep' mode. On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:26:50PM +, Tom Gilbert wrote: > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Sep 17 00:45:07 2000) --] > gpg: Signature made Sat Sep 16

Re: pgp vs. mutt

* will trillich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > i don't give a whit about signing my messages; unless we're passing > munitions details during a war, i don't see the importance (at least > none of my ramblings are even CLOSE to needing any certification or > verification). i just wanna get rid of the

Re: pgp vs. mutt

well at least the message has changed a bit (it's not looking for pgp any more, now it's looking for a signature...) i don't give a whit about signing my messages; unless we're passing munitions details during a war, i don't see the importance (at least none of my ramblings are even CLOSE to needi

Re: pgp vs. mutt

What version of mutt are you using? If I remember correctly, for the potato version you need to add "set pgp_default_version = gpg" or similar to ~/.muttrc. On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:15:58PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote: > On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:49:15PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote: > > Hi Will,

Re: pgp vs. mutt

Hi Will, Chris, I have the following in my ~/.muttrc [rei:~]%grep pgp ~/.muttrc set pgp_default_version=gpg set pgp_autosign set pgp_sign_as= set pgp_timeout=7200 It works fine like that, you shouldn't need much more. cheers, damon Quoth Chris Gray, > On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:15:58PM -050

Re: pgp vs. mutt

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 01:15:58PM -0500, Will Trillich wrote: > mutt is now back to displaying > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Thu Sep 14 13:08:42 2000) --] > sh: /usr/bin/pgp: No such file or directory > [-- End of PGP output --] > for any email from anyone who's got a s

RE: pgp vs. mutt

> -Original Message- > From: Will Trillich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 8:16 PM > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: pgp vs. mutt > > > mutt is now back to displaying > [-- PGP output follows (current tim

Re: pgp vs. mutt

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:49:15PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote: > Hi Will, > > A lot of people on this list are probably using GnuPG (gpg), which is a > GNU replacement for PGP. As long as you have a non-us line in your apt > cources.list do an apt-get install gnupg. so i did # apt-get --purge rem

Re: pgp vs. mutt

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 07:49:15PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote: > Hi Will, > > A lot of people on this list are probably using GnuPG (gpg), which is a > GNU replacement for PGP. As long as you have a non-us line in your apt > cources.list do an apt-get install gnupg. > > The pgp you have installed

Re: pgp vs. mutt

Hi Will, A lot of people on this list are probably using GnuPG (gpg), which is a GNU replacement for PGP. As long as you have a non-us line in your apt cources.list do an apt-get install gnupg. The pgp you have installed is quite old, and certainly doesn't support gpg and the newer pgp's. If you

Re: PGP and Mutt

On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > This is why the gpg maintainers get so sniffy about mutt. The mime/pgp > attachments are not widely supported *at all*. So there's been an > option, since 1.2.3 I think, to do it the standard way. Put > > set pgp_create_traditi

Re: PGP and Mutt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > Say I'm using one of the many mailers that doesn't support gpg > > integration, so I need to save the message and key to disk and use gpg > > manually to check the signatures. What parts of the message are > >

Re: PGP and Mutt

msg.pgp Description: PGP message pgpgrX4is1BOD.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: PGP and Mutt

On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 12:57:44PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > If it helps, my .muttrc is attached. Note that I've got gpg, not > > pgp, installed. I'd recommend you use the same. There is only one > > tag in my mu

Re: PGP and Mutt

Brian and others, thanks for the replys, I guess I can't solve all without reading:) On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 07:09:34PM -0700, brian moore wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 03:21:58AM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote: > > now I get the following error message once I open a signed mail: > > > >[--

Re: PGP and Mutt

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > If it helps, my .muttrc is attached. Note that I've got gpg, not pgp, > installed. I'd recommend you use the same. There is only one tag in my > muttrc which appears relevant, that's the "pgp_autosign" hook. >

  1   2   3   >