On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:12:41 -0500GMT (24-3-2005, 5:12 +0100, where I
live), David Shaw wrote:
...
>>> You get the error when you *send* a message, or when you *verify* a
>>> message?
>> Not while sending, but when I verify a message.
>>
>>> What happens if you remove the 'digest-algo RIPEMD160
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:54:08AM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:33:18 -0500GMT (24-3-2005, 3:33 +0100, where I
> live), David Shaw wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:21:08AM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>
> >> Sorry for not telling relevant information. As you can se
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:33:18 -0500GMT (24-3-2005, 3:33 +0100, where I
live), David Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:21:08AM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>> Sorry for not telling relevant information. As you can see in my
>> signature I am using The Bat! Further I use GnuPG 1.4.1 with GPGS
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:21:08AM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:08:19 -0500GMT (23-3-2005, 21:08 +0100, where I
> live), David Shaw wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:02:27PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>
> >> I changed the digest algo from SHA1 to RIPEMD160
>
> >
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:08:19 -0500GMT (23-3-2005, 21:08 +0100, where I
live), David Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:02:27PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>> I changed the digest algo from SHA1 to RIPEMD160
> This does not tell me anything useful. I don't know what mailer you
> are using
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:51:59 -0500GMT (23-3-2005, 20:51 +0100, where I
live), David Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>> When I verified one of my own messages which had been signed pgp/mime
>> I got this errormessage:
>>
>> gpg: Signature made 03/23/0
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 09:02:27PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:51:59 -0500GMT (23-3-2005, 20:51 +0100, where I
> live), David Shaw wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
>
> >> When I verified one of my own messages which had been si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 05:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> i tested it on a neutral public system [win2k pro],
> that (afaik), has never had gnupg or winpt before.
>
> (not especially a 'spying' system, but also one with no rights for
> me to
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:29:21PM +0100, Henk de Bruijn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I verified one of my own messages which had been signed pgp/mime
> I got this errormessage:
>
> gpg: Signature made 03/23/05 12:16:08 using DSA key ID DBE6E678
> gpg: WARNING: signature digest conflict in message
> gpg
Hi,
When I verified one of my own messages which had been signed pgp/mime
I got this errormessage:
gpg: Signature made 03/23/05 12:16:08 using DSA key ID DBE6E678
gpg: WARNING: signature digest conflict in message
gpg: Can't check signature: general error
I checked my messages of the last couple
Il /23 mar 2005/, *David Shaw* ha scritto:
> Thanks for running that test. I can see what happened now. It's
> amusing that this comes up so many years later, and it seems nobody
> noticed.
Well... Consider that 99% of Win32 GnuPG users has a statically linked
executable and that, moreover, 99
I try using Win32 Gnu GPG 1.4.0 and 1.4.1 to do 'gpg --gen-key'
using the default setting. The generation process rarely ever finish.
Most of the time the generation process run and never finish.
8<->8
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.1; Copyri
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:51:09 -1000
>From: Maxine Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: gpg-2-go + winpt + usb drive // do-able !
>On Tuesday 22 March 2005 08:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> as winpt does not need any 'path' or registry entries in
>windows,
>> it can eas
* Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you can also add a "default-cert-level" line to specify what the default
> should be, if you find yourself issuing a certain level most often.
Not really, according to my signing policy I have to use level "2" or
"3" quite often thus a fixed setting do
* David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:14:25AM +0100, Marcus Frings wrote:
>> I wish the old behaviour would still be the default.
> Stick 'ask-cert-level' in your gpg.conf file, and it will be your
> default again.
That's what I did. :-)
Regards,
Marcus
--
Poison
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:06:03AM +0100, Carlo Luciano Bianco wrote:
> Il /22 mar 2005/, *David Shaw* ha scritto:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:38:47PM +0100, Carlo Luciano Bianco wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, what do you think about the path problem? I tried to add
> [...]
> > Can you try runn
Il /22 mar 2005/, *David Shaw* ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:38:47PM +0100, Carlo Luciano Bianco wrote:
>
>> By the way, what do you think about the path problem? I tried to add
[...]
> Can you try running with '--debug 1024' ? Do two runs, one with, and
> one without --exec-path (on
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:32:39 +0530, "Thutika, Srinivas (ODC said:
> I am facing the following renaming problem..
Are you using 1.4.1?
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinf
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 01:37:54 +0100, Kiefer, Sascha said:
> (*add) ( &minimumWorkingSetSize,
> sizeof (&minimumWorkingSetSize), requester );
Rigfht. This is a bug.
> (*add) (&performanceCount, sizeof (&performanceCount), requester);
As well as this one.
Fixed in CVS of gnupg
19 matches
Mail list logo
