ti., 29.03.2016 kl. 09.59 +0200, skrev Milan Crha:
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 02:51 +0200, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> >
> > Because "gpg: no running gpg-agent - starting '/usr/bin/gpg-agent'
> > gpg: waiting for the agent to come up ... (5s)
> > gpg: connec
ma., 28.03.2016 kl. 23.47 +0100, skrev Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 20:52 +0200, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> >
> > I get a message in Evolution that signing fails due to some ioctl,
> > and
> > SELinux is giving me a message about some colord att
I get a message in Evolution that signing fails due to some ioctl, and
SELinux is giving me a message about some colord attempt to accsess
read on this file: /etc/udev/hwdb.bin. Are these to connected somehow?
I'm running Evolution on both Trisquel and Mint with no problems. Now
I'm in Fedora, an
on. den 23. 03. 2016 klokka 19.24 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Mittwoch, den 23.03.2016, 19:02 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > on. den 23. 03. 2016 klokka 08.14 (+0100) skreiv Milan Crha:
> > > On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 20:10 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > >
on. den 23. 03. 2016 klokka 08.14 (+0100) skreiv Milan Crha:
> On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 20:10 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > I'm trying (again) to send a crypted message, but I get the message that
> > Evolution is using sub-key instead of publi key. How can I cha
I'm trying (again) to send a crypted message, but I get the message that
Evolution is using sub-key instead of publi key. How can I change this,
please?
Sincerely,
Stig
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
evolution-li
ty. den 01. 03. 2016 klokka 10.07 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> >
> > I'm not sure why but I am currently unable to sign e-mails, I'm getting
> > the following error:
> >
> > Could not create message.
> >
> > Because "gpg: skipped "67449612": No secret key
> > gpg: signing failed: No
ty. den 01. 03. 2016 klokka 10.07 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> >
> > I'm not sure why but I am currently unable to sign e-mails, I'm getting
> > the following error:
> >
> > Could not create message.
> >
> > Because "gpg: skipped "67449612": No secret key
> > gpg: signing failed: No
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 19.45 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers,
> > sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list?
>
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 19.45 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers,
> > sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list?
>
oment in time.
That's all good, I suppose.
Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers,
sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list?
Stig
--
Stig Roar Wangberg
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.22 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.53 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > > It saved twice in Inbox?
> > > > My email
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.53 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli:
>
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > It saved twice in Inbox?
> > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in
> > > Inbox.
> > >
&g
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.17 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 17:41 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > It saved twice in Inbox?
> > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in Inbox.
> > >
> > > Rudolf
>
> It saved twice in Inbox?
> My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in Inbox.
>
> Rudolf
Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution?
Stig
___
evolution-list mailing list
evolution-list@gnome.org
To change
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 16.23 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> It's probably best to start a new topic for unrelated questions -
> nobody will ever find this in amongst all those GPG emails.
> Is your service provider also saving sent copies?
>
> P.
Oh, it probably is. In sent folder. Here I get
> As the "Content-Type:" says, that's the PGP encrypted attachment.
>
> I don't know why there are two .dat files.
>
> If you want, forward the mail (as an attachment) to me and I'll have a
> look at it. But it won't be immediately.
>
> P.
Another thing I've noticed, is that I get two copies
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 14.10 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf:
> I only mentioned a few pitfalls/falsities about what signing,
> encryption, TOR etc. could provide and what not and why to care about
> pitfalls. A discussion about motives is irrelevant.
I agree. Thank you, Sir. Your messages are ve
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 03.58 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf:
> 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 judg
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 12.36 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > I know. Like Trump and the debate about Apple, universal back-doors,
> > and
> > the rest of Pentagon et al going on and on about
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 03.58 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf:
> 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 judg
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 insg
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
su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.34 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 23:49 +0100, Rudolf Künzli wrote:
> > > My key weren't confirmed in my sent messages before I trusted my
> > own
> > > key. So I guess that's what other people that trust me have to do
> > > too.
> >
> >
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 23.49 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli:
> On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > &g
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.55 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.41 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli:
> > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > >
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.41 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli:
> On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > &g
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > > to.
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:47 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > > Am
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:47 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > > Am
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > >
la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's alw
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's always
> > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment?
> >
> > --=-FBjrxYQ2/8R5tscH+TLU
> > Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted; name="dat.asc"
>
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 10.12 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> >
> > Using the Ctr+U command, I got this info:
> >
> > --=-cAzVArTuBQDjGRJ48pLs
> > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF"
> >
> >
> > --=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Tran
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 10.09 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> >
> > OK, so I ran the file command, file attachment.dat, and got this
> > message: 'very short file (no magic)'. No 'strange' number or strings or
> > anything! Extremely educational answers from you, even though it's 'far
> > from Ev
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > There are a lot of info there, and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking
> > for. Both the attachments says 'ordinary text document' (translated from
> > Norwegian), and the third says PGP/Mime encrypted.
> >
>
> So they are somethin
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > There are a lot of info there, and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking
> > for. Both the attachments says 'ordinary text document' (translated from
> > Norwegian), and the third says PGP/Mime encrypted.
> >
>
> So they are somethin
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.18 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > Yes of course. I understand that. I'm just curious what those dat-files
> > are. The sender didn't intentionally attach those files. Are they
> > generated by Evolution? He sent one encrypted letter (file.gpg) as an
> > attachment, bu
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.18 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > Yes of course. I understand that. I'm just curious what those dat-files
> > are. The sender didn't intentionally attach those files. Are they
> > generated by Evolution? He sent one encrypted letter (file.gpg) as an
> > attachment, bu
to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.45 (+0100) skreiv Andre Klapper:
> On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 20:28 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > I'm just curious what the DAT-files are, that are created when I send
> > and receive attachments?
>
> I'd be very surprised if Evolut
on. den 10. 02. 2016 klokka 16.52 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 20:28 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > I have yet another "stupid" question to ask. I'm just curious what
> > > the
> > > DAT-files are, that are crea
on. den 10. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> må. den 08. 02. 2016 klokka 09.51 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > >
> > >
> > > It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256,
> > > Evolution still uses SHA-1. Wha
ll give you more information.
> The message I'm replying to says:
>
> gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1
> gpg: Signature made Mon 08 Feb 2016 08:48:43 GMT using RSA key ID 7C174863
> gpg: using PGP trust model
> gpg: Good signature from "
ll give you more information.
> The message I'm replying to says:
>
> gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1
> gpg: Signature made Mon 08 Feb 2016 08:48:43 GMT using RSA key ID 7C174863
> gpg: using PGP trust model
> gpg: Good signature from "
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 21.58 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> >
> >
> > People tell me that they can't open the attachment (my signature comes
> > attached to my mails). I know it's not an Evo problem, but what advice
> > can I give them?
> >
> You don't open the attachment - the PGP signature
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that
> > value
> > > > under 'security
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that
> > value
> > > > under 'security
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 12.21 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 13:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg w
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see any
> > sign of it. Here, after sending it, it says "valid s
su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see any
> > sign of it. Here, after sending it, it says "valid s
la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 10.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote
la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg:
> fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > > It seems like I manage to send signed emails. Not sure about he
&g
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > It seems like I manage to send signed emails. Not sure about he
> > encryption yet. But it seems like I cannot encrypt and sign at the
> >
I mean, I've tried gpg --encrypt --sign --armor -r per...@email.com
name_of_file, but does it have to be an armor file?
SRW
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > It seems like I
SRW
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > It seems like I manage to send signed emails. Not sure about he
> > encryption yet. But it seems like I cannot encrypt and sign at the
>
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 13.30 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 14:01 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Great! That's what I was thinking. So, the importation of keys is no
> > problem. I just wondered if that's enough for Evolutio
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 13.30 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 14:01 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Great! That's what I was thinking. So, the importation of keys is no
> > problem. I just wondered if that's enough for Evolutio
iv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 13:15 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Ah, I think I'm beginning to understand. So this is another form of
> > encryption, still using the receiver's public key, and s/he still has
> > to use his or her private key t
f I
had to import them into Evolution in addition to importing them to my
key-ring (which I always do in my terminal).
Thanks again!
SRW
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 12.45 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 13:15 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > Ah,
Thanks a lot! I need some time to let all this sink in. After all, last
year I didn't even know what GPG/PGP, GNOME, Linux, terminal or GNU are!
I'm only trying to get my Evolution to work perfectly. I've never heard
of that gpg command before or how it works.
Thanks again!
SRW
fr. den 05. 02. 2
12.07 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 12:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > I really don't understand why I can read a message if it's encrypted
> > with their public key. I shouldn't be able to do that. When I use gpg -r
> > ID -e , I can
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 12.07 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 12:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > I really don't understand why I can read a message if it's encrypted
> > with their public key. I shouldn't be able to do that. When I use g
ys are
imported and added to my key-ring. I'm just puzzled that I'm actually
able to read a text encrypted with someone else's key.
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.30 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 07:00 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > It seems like
fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.30 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 07:00 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> > It seems like Evolution is up an running (even though it seldom sends my
> > emails). Another problem is signing and encrypting. Concerning the
> >
I get how to add my own GPG ID, my public key, but how do I add other
people's public keys - which I need to send them encrypted letters, yes?
Sorry, I'm really new to this, both Linux, GNOME, Trisquel and GPG.
Please, I would love a little help.
SRW
signature.asc
Description: This is a digital
It seems like Evolution is up an running (even though it seldom sends my
emails). Another problem is signing and encrypting. Concerning the
latter, I don't know if my emails are encrypted with the receivers
public key, or mine. I have only imported my own public key, so how does
Evolution know how
67 matches
Mail list logo
