Re: Possable bug with winpt-0.9.90rc1

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:00:41 -0700, David Vallier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Recently I tried signing a file using winpt-0.9.90rc1 and right after > words I get a "box" popping up saying what? with 2 5-6 digit numbers > separated by a slash and

Possable bug with winpt-0.9.90rc1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Recently I tried signing a file using winpt-0.9.90rc1 and right after words I get a "box" popping up saying what? with 2 5-6 digit numbers separated by a slash and what appears to be a progress bar below that, and winpt just sits there like it wants a

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:07:50PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > I really don't think it is worth trying to protect against these > scenarios. A user can simply remove any non-revocable sigs they > don't want in their local keyring. As soon as you posit a user who is going to edit their local key

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:36:09PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:32:06PM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > What about different Levels (sig1..sig3) of signatures? If the first > > one is sig3 and the second one sig1 and min-cert-level>1 there would > > be a difference. >

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:32:06PM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > * David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-20 13:37 -0500]: > > Seriously, think about it: > > > >non-revocable sig 1-Jan-2000 > >expiring sig2-Jan-2000 (expires 10-Jan-2000). > > > > Now, say it's Janua

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 03:10:44PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > > Seriously, think about it: > > > >non-revocable sig 1-Jan-2000 > >expiring sig2-Jan-2000 (expires 10-Jan-2000). > > > > Now, say it's January 3rd. According to what you want, the signature > > that gets

Plugin for Outlook 2003

Is there a better plugin than the GPA plugin for OL 2003? Sean _ avast! Antivirus : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0511-1, 17/03/2005 Tested on: 20/03/2005 23:13:03 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. __

Re: Retaining expired sigs

* David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-20 13:37 -0500]: > Seriously, think about it: > > non-revocable sig 1-Jan-2000 > expiring sig2-Jan-2000 (expires 10-Jan-2000). > > Now, say it's January 3rd. According to what you want, the signature > that gets used is the 2-

new (2005-03-20) keyanalyze results (+sigcheck)

New keyanalyze results are available at: http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ka/2005-03-20/ Signatures are now being checked using keyanalyze+sigcheck: http://dtype.org/~aaronl/ Earlier reports are also available, for comparison: http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ka/ Even earlier month

Re: Adding a receiver

On Sunday, March 20, 2005, 3:20:16 PM, Dominik wrote: > I've encrypted a large file and sent it over the internet. > After that I realized that it is encrypted with the wrong public key. > As far as I understand public key encryption it should be possible to > reencrypt only the random session key

Re: gpg over ssh...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 this seems to work for me: $ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'cat file1' | gpg | ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'cat - > file2' note the quotes. it reads an encrypted file (file1) from the server, decrypts it locally and writes the decrypted data back to a file

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:37:04PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:18:42PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > I agree with your general idea here, but not the details, exactly. > > > What GnuPG does in this case is

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:18:42PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:25:32PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > > > > The sig. of 1-Jan-2000 is valid and usable. It can only be ignored when > > > superceded. > > > >

Re: Retaining expired sigs

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:35:47PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:25:32PM -0500, Jason Harris wrote: > > The sig. of 1-Jan-2000 is valid and usable. It can only be ignored when > > superceded. > > I agree with your general idea here, but not the details, exactly. > What G

Re: Libcurl (was Re: [Announce] GnuPG 1.4.1 released)

Il /18 mar 2005/, *David Shaw* ha scritto: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:09:11PM +0100, Carlo Luciano Bianco wrote: > >> > With libcurl as well? Excellent. [...] > Understood. I'm just pleased that it builds on MinGW at all. Yes, it builds, but there is a small building problem I discovered in

Adding a receiver

Hello! I've encrypted a large file and sent it over the internet. After that I realized that it is encrypted with the wrong public key. As far as I understand public key encryption it should be possible to reencrypt only the random session key for the symmetric cipher with the other public key

Re: Revoking a key using the designated revoker

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:03:37PM +0100, David Lorch wrote: > Hi all, > > GPG provides an option to add a designated revoker to a key. > Having designated my primary key as revoker for a smart card key, I > would like to know how I can actually revoke the latter should I lose > its secret key (th

Revoking a key using the designated revoker

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, GPG provides an option to add a designated revoker to a key. Having designated my primary key as revoker for a smart card key, I would like to know how I can actually revoke the latter should I lose its secret key (that is, the smart card). I

Re: gpg over ssh...

Hello John > Have you considered copying the encrypted file with scp, the opening a > ssh sheel to decrypt & run? Yes. As noted in my email this surely is one possibility. But this means I have to copy the encrypted file to my home-server, decrypt it there and then copy it back unencrypted to the

Re: gpg over ssh...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerhard Siegesmund wrote: > Hello List > > I don't know, whether this is a dump thing to do, but I had the > following idea, which I unfortunately didn't get to work. > > I am working on linux (debian) with gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.0. > > Say, I have a encry

gpg over ssh...

Hello List I don't know, whether this is a dump thing to do, but I had the following idea, which I unfortunately didn't get to work. I am working on linux (debian) with gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.0. Say, I have a encrypted file somewhere on a server on the net. Naturally I don't have my private key on that