On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:05 +0100, Tom wrote:
> Remark, that most of these mails are
> sent via Microsoft Infrastructure.
Hi,
the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends
certificates.
It's different from PGP, which is just web of trust. Did you ever heard
of the key
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:58:38 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:22:02 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
>>I only encrypt to people I trust IF the message requires it.
>
>Here we face another issue. If you don't always encrypt messages, then
>a judge could assume that the encrypted
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:22:02 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
>I only encrypt to people I trust IF the message requires it.
Here we face another issue. If you don't always encrypt messages, then
a judge could assume that the encrypted email are related to a crime.
In some countries, IIRC e.g. Grea
su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 16.38 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > > This is not the way it's supposed to work. If I don't check the
> > > public
> > > key is trusted, why should I believe a message signed with it?
> > > Simply
> > > picking up the key with the message is tantamount to doing nothing.
> thomas@ga-78:~$ gpg --recv-keys 7C174863
> gpg: Schlüssel 7C174863 von hkp-Server keys.gnupg.net anfordern
> gpg: /home/thomas/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trust-db erzeugt
> gpg: Schlüssel 7C174863: Öffentlicher Schlüssel "Stig Roar Wangberg
> " importiert
> gpg: Anzahl insgesamt bearbeiteter Schlüssel:
El 2016-02-21 18:49, Ralf Mardorf escribió:
On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as
> valid for further mails ?
You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that
the signature belongs to him. Wh
On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as
> > valid for further mails ?
> You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that
> the signature belongs to him. Which is not advisable if you don't
> kno
>
> Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as
> valid for further mails ?
You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that the
signature belongs to him. Which is not advisable if you don't know
that for certain - since it creates faults in the web of
> > This is not the way it's supposed to work. If I don't check the
> > public
> > key is trusted, why should I believe a message signed with it?
> > Simply
> > picking up the key with the message is tantamount to doing nothing.
> > I
> > must either know the key beforehand (i.e. I have it in my k
Am Sonntag, den 21.02.2016, 12:37 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.54 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 01:47 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > And thanks, by the way, for your answers and help. I've learned a lot
> > > since I got
Am Sonntag, den 21.02.2016, 01:42 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
(...)
> > > > > > Signature exists but the public key however is
> > > > > > needed/required.
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > gpg: Signature at the Sa 20 Feb 2016 16:56:34 CET with RSA key,
> > > > > > ID
> > > > > > 7C174863, is carr
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 21:59 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
(...)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rudolf Künzli - rudolf.kunzli@gmail.comSkype: rudolf.kunzli
> >
> >
> > Your signature looks like this:
> >
> > gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1
> > gpg: Signature made la. 20. feb. 2016 kl. 21.
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 21:14 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
(...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Everything is working just fine now! I'm very pleased with Evolution.
> > > > > But what does it mean when it says that the signature is valid, but
> > > > > cannot confirm the sender (I don't know the e
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 20:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
(...)
> > > > > > Everything is working just fine now! I'm very pleased with
> > > > > > Evolution.
> > > > > > But what does it mean when it says that the signature is valid, but
> > > > > > cannot confirm the sender (I don't kn
su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.54 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 01:47 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > And thanks, by the way, for your answers and help. I've learned a lot
> > since I got here.
>
> No problem.
>
> Note that it's also good practice to quote only
15 matches
Mail list logo
