On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:29 +0100, Rudolf Künzli wrote:
> > Inbox, I get two copies of my reply back into my Inbox.
> >
>
> Something to check with your mail server/provider. Mine one is gmail
> and works the way I defined...
Gmail stores a copy of every message you send in its Sent Mail folder
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:45 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> PS: Btw. Ubuntu claims
> Replying to digest emails breaks the threading
> http://community.ubuntu.com/contribute/support/mailinglists/
> but actually it's solvable by using MIME Digest
> http://www.list.org/mailman-member/node
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?
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listi
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?
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listi
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?
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
At the bottom there's "Unsubscribe or edit options".
må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.29 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > > ... twice in inbox might come from those who reply to YOU and to the
> > > LIST. I don't. Do you see this here twice ?
> >
> > No, yours and other's messages only comes one. But the one I'm writing
> > now will come twice into my I
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:44:52 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
>>
>> This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL
>> you'd receive my answer twice ...
>>
>
>Not necessarily. There is a list option to prevent getting double
>emails when you are directly sent a copy.
With the disad
>
> This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL you'd
> receive my answer twice ...
>
Not necessarily. There is a list option to prevent getting double
emails when you are directly sent a copy.
P.
___
evolution-list mailing li
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:29 +0100, Tom wrote:
> This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL
> you'd receive my answer twice ...
The OP mentioned:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:22:58 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
>I get none in sent, and two in Inbox.
It's not the known receivi
Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 18:22 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> 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
> > ... twice in inbox might come from those who reply to YOU and to the
> > LIST. I don't. Do you see this here twice ?
>
> No, yours and other's messages only comes one. But the one I'm writing
> now will come twice into my Inbox.
>
Is it just this list or is it all emails?
If it's just this
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:26 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> 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
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 provider stores the replies in Sent and addi
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.
> > >
> > > Rudolf
> >
> > Ah, so that's why it's sa
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
> >
> > Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in
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
>
> Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution?
... twice in inbox might come from th
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.
> >
> > Rudolf
>
> Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution?
>
> Stig
>
But I just get one copy i
> 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
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:29 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> 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 sav
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
It's probably best to start a new topic for unrelated questions -
nobody will ever find this in amongst all those GPG emails.
> Another thing I've noticed, is that I get two copies of sent letters
> (replies) to the folder I'm sending from. It's enough with one copy, and
> I don't understand why
> 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
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 14:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> But I DO agree with the facts you are presenting.
That's no reason to repeat his entire message just to add a couple of
lines of comment.
poc
___
evolution-list mailing list
evolution-list@
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.
___
evolution-list mailing list
evolution-list@gnome.org
To change you
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 judge could assume that the
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 that encryption
> > equals
> > c
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:36 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> 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 that encryption
> > equals
> > crim
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 that encryption
> equals
> crime. I'm in Scandinavia. And I hope we don't have to become an
> American state i
Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 11:50 + schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
> On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:22 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
(...)
> >
> > Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email
> > Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when
> > they issue pers
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 judge could assume that the
On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:22 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends
> > certificates.
>
> Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email
> Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when
> they is
>
> the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends
> certificates.
Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email
Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when
they issue personal certificates is that the certificate is sent to the
e
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
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 the parts of the
message you are commenting on, and not keep an ever-increasing sau
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:
> > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.0
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.
>
> IMHO your public key should be attached/sent with your signature. In
> that case I
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:
> > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 s
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:
> > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:
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:
> > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.0
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:
> > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom:
> > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 s
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. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (
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 Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56
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 Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56
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 Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > > > to. den 11. 02. 2016
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. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs:
> > > > > What about this, then? Doe
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:
> > > > > What about this, then? Do
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 always
> > > > two .dat-files attached
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 always
> > > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment?
> > >
> > > --=-FBjr
On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 16:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> 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?
> > >
> > > --=-FBjrx
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"
>
> 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"
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dat.asc"
> Content-Transfe
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
On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 10:09 +, Pete Biggs wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:17:01 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
>The files aren't dangerous in any way?
I don't think so, but consider to use an online virus scanner.
IMO it's dangerous, if a group of people feels secure using gpg, but
having misconceptions about how it works. Once you figured out
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
>
> Using the Ctr+U command, I got this info:
>
> --=-cAzVArTuBQDjGRJ48pLs
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF"
>
>
> --=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> The other info I get, but these two must be
>
> 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 Evolution'. Or is it. So 'no magic', 'ey?
The "magic" refers to the me
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
> 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 something that was attached before it was received and
nothing to do with Evolut
> Thank you! I tried to open them, by the way, in gedit, but they were
> empty. I'm just worried because I downloaded them. I really hope they're
> not doing my computer any harm. The sender doesn't understand it either.
> I'll look into it.
>
The bottom line is that malware on Linux is quite ra
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
> 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, but when I downloaded the attachment, there were two more,
> i.e. atta
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 Evolution suddenly created .dat files.
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 Evolution suddenly created .dat files.
I've only seen "winmail.dat" files created by Microsoft Exchange
Servers
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 created when I send and receive
> > > attachments? No
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 created when I send and receive
> > attachments? Not
> > everyone I know use Evolution. But most are encrypting their
> > messages
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. What can be the reason for that, you think?
>
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. What can be the reason for that, you think?
>
> No it's not, your messages are signed using a SHA256 digest. At the
> bott
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. What can be the reason for that, you think?
>
> No it's not, your messages are signed using a SHA256 digest. At the
> bott
>
>
> It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256,
> Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think?
No it's not, your messages are signed using a SHA256 digest. At the
bottom of a signed/encrypted message in Evolution you will see a
coloured bar
On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 09:48 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote:
> It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256,
> Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think?
Hi,
why do you think that, please? Looking into message headers (of the
message I repl
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
On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 23:35 +0100, Tom wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > 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 v
Tom wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> > 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?
>
> First one (too?) simple question:
Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg:
> 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
> > > > >
>
>
> 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 is meaningless
without the message it's attached to: the point of the sig
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' below my key ID too? This is my last question.
> > >
> > >
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' below my key ID too? This is my last question.
> > >
> > >
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' below my key ID too? This is my last question.
> >
> > The key ID is the 8-character value that appears when you run "gpg
> --
> > list-
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 wrote:
> > > > People tell me my
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 wrote:
> > > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see
> > > any
> > > sign of it. H
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 signature". When I
> > sing a letter
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
