Hi all,
I've tried over the past week to send encrypted e-mails to a friend with a
Hushmail address from Kmail on SuSE 9.3 . I've got his key on my keyring and
when I hit the 'send' button, it brings up the gpg window showing the key I'm
using and all that and I enter my passphrase and it
David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
>
>>Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
>>is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>>
>>Are they a good/bad signer?
>>Does something need to be done about th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reference:
Subject: Re: legal status of GnuPG in China?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> just remember, next time you buy some piec
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
> is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>
> Are they a good/bad signer?
> Does something need to be done about them?
> Should they be ap
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:28:22AM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> >
> >>David Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >>>keys: that would put the user in contro
Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
Are they a good/bad signer?
Does something need to be done about them?
Should they be approached by the community?
PGP's position (and the argument I've heard fr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Shaw wrote:
> There is perhaps an argument to be made for a "super clean" that does
> clean and also removes any signature where the signing key is not
> present (in fact, an early version of clean did that), but that's a
> different thing than c
David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
>
>>David Shaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>>>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>>>others by stripping signatures is a very
Johan Wevers wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>>Removing duplicated signatures however would probably have little impact,
>>assuming you are removing only the newest ones
>
> Don't you mean keeping the newst ones?
>
Er, yes. However as David Shaw pointed out further down the thread,
there's no safe way to
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
>
> > Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. "clean"
> > can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
> > want cleaned (so it can know
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Interestingly there is a difference, whether I use '--import' to get
> a key from a 'key.asc' or '--recv-key' to import it from a keyserver.
> It reproducibly asks for two different, not existing keys. On WinXP
> it is always 0022F
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. "clean"
> can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
> want cleaned (so it can know which signatures to remove). In your
> case, you need to fetch key CA57
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> > 2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
> > 'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
> > gefunden' (my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key
> > 0022FA10 found) As you can see i
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:30:35AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:31:35AM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
>
> [I'll address your other points later.]
>
> > If you insist on presenting a different view to users th
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:31:35AM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
[I'll address your other points later.]
> If you insist on presenting a different view to users than the entire
> rest of the keyserver net, without any way to turn such a
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:11:30PM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
> >Carrying out a full cleaning of keys stored on keyservers would
> >seriously damage the WoT.
>
> Too bad. However, if you just strip the GD signature off the damage won't
> be too large.
Then it needs to be done a
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:38:31PM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> Johan Wevers wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
> >>others by stripping signatures is a ve
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> >I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
> >others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
>
> Con
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> > If I ran a keyserver, would it be appropriate for me to drop all
> > signatures from your key D39DA0E3 simply because they're available
> > somewhere else?
>
> keyserver.pgp.com doesn't synchronize with other keyservers, by design,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Version 1.2.1 of GPGee has now been released and is available at
http://gpgee.excelcia.org.
This is mainly a bugfix release to correct a couple of functional bugs
that appeared shortly after 1.2.0 was released. Bugs fixes include:
- - Performin
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:48:07 +0200, Andreas Liebschner said:
> Apparently it successfully imports it, but however I still see the old
> card' s/n under "General key info..:". In fact, I can't sign anything
> because I'm asked for the other card. (I obviousy save before quitting gpg)
Well, this mi
Alphax wrote:
>Carrying out a full cleaning of keys stored on keyservers would
>seriously damage the WoT.
Too bad. However, if you just strip the GD signature off the damage won't
be too large.
>Removing duplicated signatures however would probably have little impact,
>assuming you are removing
Hi,
I'm still playing with my card ;-)
Just in case my fellowship card breaks up, I wanted to test the
bkuptocard process. So I stick another openpgp card in the reader and
--edit my key, run bkuptocard /path/to/sk_*.gpg
Apparently it successfully imports it, but however I still see the old
card
Johan Wevers wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
>
>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>>others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
>
>
> Considering the behaviour of the GD, I'd s
David Shaw wrote:
>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
Considering the behaviour of the GD, I'd say it's also a practical issue
about
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:32:21AM +0930, Roscoe wrote:
> I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get in
> - and not new vewsions.
> (I maybe wrong on that.)
> (Naturally that only applies to stable..)
>
> Building and installing your own gnupg.deb from gnupg.org sources ha
Le Fri 9/09/2005, Roscoe disait
> I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get in
> - and not new vewsions.
> (I maybe wrong on that.)
> (Naturally that only applies to stable..)
But unsable still has 1.4.1
--
Erwan
___
Gnupg-us
27 matches
Mail list logo
