On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 12:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 11:24:11 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 11:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >> PS: I dislike multipart messages sent to mailing lists. Your mail
> >> isn't a text/HTML multipart, but you include
On Sun, 10 May 2015 11:24:11 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 11:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> PS: I dislike multipart messages sent to mailing lists. Your mail
>> isn't a text/HTML multipart, but you include your signature and IMO
>> signing mails sent to mailing lists i
On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 11:26 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> PS: I dislike multipart messages sent to mailing lists. Your mail
> isn't a text/HTML multipart, but you include your signature and IMO
> signing mails sent to mailing lists is redundant.
Why is it redundant?
poc
__
On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 05:59 +, Justin Musgrove wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 19:11 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 May 2015 17:36:17 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > I totally understand what you are saying.
> >
> > And I absolutely agree with your argument. However, a web of trust
>
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 19:11 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2015 17:36:17 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > I totally understand what you are saying.
>
> And I absolutely agree with your argument. However, a web of trust
> has
> got it's weak points too.
>
> I "automatically" trust the ke
On Sat, 09 May 2015 17:36:17 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
>I totally understand what you are saying.
And I absolutely agree with your argument. However, a web of trust has
got it's weak points too.
I "automatically" trust the key package of the distro I'm using, when
there's a release of new keys for
>
> this is the absolute evidence that signing emails in 99,9% of it's use
> cases is completely useless. Automatically accepting keys to validate
> signed mails renders signing useless.
I totally understand what you are saying. The mitigating fact for
autoretrieval of keys is that it doesn't b
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 14:59 +0200, pitt hoessler wrote:
> On 2015-05-08 08:27 AM, Justin Musgrove wrote:
> > Is there an option to automagicly download pub keys of signed gpg
> > emails?
> This will automatically fetch keys as needed from the keyserver.
Wow,
this is the absolute evidence that sig
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 14:59 +0200, pitt hoessler wrote:
> On 2015-05-08 08:27 AM, Justin Musgrove wrote:
> > Is there an option to automagicly download pub keys of signed gpg
> > emails?
> This will automatically fetch keys as needed from the keyserver.
Wow,
this is the absolute evidence that sig
My apologies to the moderators, I sent this mail 2 times before, using
2 times the wrong account.
Now I set up Edit > Preferences > Composer Preferences > Send Account "
evolution-list..." using the correct account and it seems to work.
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 14:59 +0200, pitt hoessler wrote:
> On
On 2015-05-08 08:27 AM, Justin Musgrove wrote:
> All,
>
> Is there an option to automagicly download pub keys of signed gpg
> emails?
>
> EVO 3.16.1
>
> JM
> ___
> evolution-list mailing list
> evolution-list@gnome.org
> To change your list options or
On 2015-05-08 08:27 AM, Justin Musgrove wrote:
All,
Is there an option to automagicly download pub keys of signed gpg
emails?
EVO 3.16.1
JM
___
evolution-list mailing list
evolution-list@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
All,
Is there an option to automagicly download pub keys of signed gpg
emails?
EVO 3.16.1
JM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
evolution-list mailing list
evolution-list@gnome.org
To change your list options or un
13 matches
Mail list logo
