Someone emailed me rather than the list about a post I made regarding
transparently encrypting filesystems. Due to a bug I just discovered in
my mail client (Evolution 2.0.4) it would be a hassle to reply to that
message. However, that person is on the list, so here is my reply:
It is not possible
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:12:51PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > Plus, plus, plus.
>
> No minuses, though, i hope?
One or two, yes. Mainly that there are programs out there that - even
this many years later - don't understand it. Outlook is the chief
culprit here.
David
Werner Koch wrote:
> Hi!
>
> We are pleased to announce the availability of a release candidate for
> the forthcoming 1.4.2 version of gnupg:
> ...
> Please try it out and report any problems to the gnupg-devel or
> gnupg-users list (http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/mailing-lists.html).
compile
Found a problem!! Weird one though...
when setting key trust with enigmail for Thunderbird, the openpgp
management gives me an 'undefined error', but after this, it changes the
trust as if nothing went wrong. I even was the light flashing on my USB
drive, indicating file modification. Weird... S
David Shaw wrote:
> Plus, plus, plus.
No minuses, though, i hope?
Dan
p.s. i have started using pgp/mime as a default.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mail
Erpo wrote:
> He's already doing this. Now he wants his system to automatically
> encrypt every file before it's written to that partition, and decrypt
> every file every time an application tries to read it in either OS.
> DM-Crypt does this for Linux, and NTFS has this capability in windows,
> bu
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:30:53PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> hey all,
>
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
When at all possible, use PGP/MIME. It's
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:42:51AM +0200, Kiefer, Sascha wrote:
> Hmm.
> I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago.
> The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format
> you are using.
> Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare
> The pgp data as att
Okay;
That's this missing part. Thanks!
Regards,
Sascha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Shaw
> Sent: Sonntag, 5. Juni 2005 01:01
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
>
>
> On Sat, J
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:04:16PM +0800, omn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just installed GnuPG 1.4.2 rc1 to my Win ME.
> When I update trust db, I receive following message:
> gpg: subpacket of type 20 has critical bit set.
>
> What does this means ? TIA.
Subpacket 20 is a signature notation. What that er
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 08:58 -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> i have found a way to
> mount windows partitions in linux at startup.
He's already doing this. Now he wants his system to automatically
encrypt every file before it's written to that partition, and decrypt
every file every time an application t
Dan Mundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> even though i revoked, removed, and otherwise annihilated my other
> uids, then uploaded the key to the Keyserver, the revoked ones still
> appear. why don't they just go away?!
I think you've just discovered a feature of the keyservers: they don't
delete s
Hi,
Just installed GnuPG 1.4.2 rc1 to my Win ME.
When I update trust db, I receive following message:
gpg: subpacket of type 20 has critical bit set.
What does this means ? TIA.
--
Best regards,
omn
___
Gnupg-users mail
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:20:07AM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote:
> even though i revoked, removed, and otherwise annihilated my other uids,
> then uploaded the key to the Keyserver, the revoked ones still appear.
> why don't they just go away?!
Keyservers do not have the ability to verify signatures (no
David Shaw wrote:
> Funny you should mention that Install the 1.4.2 release
> candidate, do --edit-key and then "clean sigs". This is a new feature
> in 1.4.2, and I'm still playing around with ways to tie it into export
> and import (optionally).
>
> Anyway, if you do "clean sigs", it'll s
> i had just the opposite problem. i can't find any kind of a linux
> driver for my USB drive.
I have since figured out how to mount my USB drive in linux, and have
edited linux's gpg.conf to accommodate for that.
Dan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 11:36:30AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> When I check my own key, I see this:
>
> vulcan:~> gpg --edit-key 9E8C5DDF
> Command> check
> uid Johan Wevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> sig!39E8C5DDF 2005-06-03 [self-signature]
> sig! 434ABDAD 2000-08-11 Z
Hmmm...
No, i think sean is also false.
The last mail form ivan boldyrev is encoded right!
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Mundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 14:21
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME
i was wondering this too, as here is my verbose key:
pub 1024D/8061A830 2005-04-26
uid Dan Mundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sig sig 8061A830 2005-04-26 __ __ [selfsig]
sig sig3 8061A830 2005-05-28 __ __ [selfsig]
sig sig3 8061A830 2005-05-28 __ __
Erpo wrote:
>The spanish thread on the list right now is revolving around the problem
>of sharing encrypted data between WinXP and Linux. The original poster
>wants to share a read/write partition between the two OSs on a laptop
>and have transparent encryption of the files on that partition.
>
>
Martin Geisler wrote:
>Dan Mundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>>here's just 1 more test of what i can posibly do!! please excuse me!
>>
>>
>
>Please stop using a public mailinglist for your tests! You will fill
>the archives with nonsense, and bother other people.
>
>I believe you had a
Kiefer, Sascha wrote:
>Hmm.
>I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago.
>The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format
>you are using.
>Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare
>The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true.
>Maybe I'm miss
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 19:21 +0200, Hernan Costante wrote:
> Gracias!
> yo soy de Capital Federal, Argentina.
>
> Les comento cual es una de mis ideas.
> Actualmente trabajo con una notebook la cual tengo en una partición
> WinXP y en otra un Debian, además de estas tengo una partición más
> grande
Hallo,
When I check my own key, I see this:
vulcan:~> gpg --edit-key 9E8C5DDF
Command> check
uid Johan Wevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sig!39E8C5DDF 2005-06-03 [self-signature]
sig! 434ABDAD 2000-08-11 Zenon Panoussis
sig! FB64FCB3 2000-08-20 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sig!
On Fri Jun 03 2005; 13:16, Peter Schott wrote:
> I will sometimes start my PC and when the WinPT program launches, I have
> a 0-byte pubring or secring. I have backups, but I am a little
I heard about this problem one or two times, but fact is that WinPT never
writes to the keyring directly. The
On 9130 day of my life Dan Mundy wrote:
> hey all,
>
> i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg
> clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what?
> which should i use more often? please help me!
Clearsigning can be processed by recipient even if his mail c
Hmm.
I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago.
The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format
you are using.
Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare
The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true.
Maybe I'm missing something, or your message
Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the signature no
matter what their system. Some people like to use the current window
function of PGP and front-ends for GPG such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is
good for sending mail to many people some of whom have no idea of what
PGP/GPG is. Using
28 matches
Mail list logo
