Re: Release date of 1.4.3

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:55:21 +0100, Topas said: > Is there some kind of roadmap when 1.4.3 will be available? There will be a release candidate soon. > gpg tarballs are signed with the following key: > pub 1024D/57548DCD 1998-07-07 [expires: 2005-12-31] I ususally prolong the key if it is clos

Re: Using TC Trustcenter.de certificates

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:26:38 +0100, Markus Plail said: > Ok, thanks for the info, but is there a way to import p12 into gpg? I > didn't get it to work and so worked around it by importing the p12 key No OpenPGP and X.509 are different formats. You can't import them. PGP uses a hack to encapsulate

Re: Assertion Failed 1.4.2

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:14:29 +, Aredeji 04 said: > I am trying to generate a key pair using the --batch option. This is known and fixed in the SVN. You may find a snapshot at ftp://ftp.g10code.com/g10code/scratch/gnupg-1.4.3-cvs.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp.g10code.com/g10code/scratch/gnupg-1.4.3-c

Release date of 1.4.3

Hi. Is there some kind of roadmap when 1.4.3 will be available? Another issue: gpg tarballs are signed with the following key: pub 1024D/57548DCD 1998-07-07 [expires: 2005-12-31] Key fingerprint = 6BD9 050F D8FC 941B 4341 2DCC 68B7 AB89 5754 8DCD uid Werner Koch (gnupg sig) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Problem using open PGP and enigmail

Hi, I just upgraded to Thunderbird email version 1.5 RC1. I also upgraded my enigmail. Now, when I try to send and encrypted email, I get the error: "gpg: can't handle text lines longer than 19995 characters" How do I fix this? I don't use command line gpg, but rather enigmail extension to t

Assertion Failed 1.4.2

I am trying to generate a key pair using the --batch option. At first it worked but now I keep getting the following error: gpg: Generating a standard key ++++.+++..+..++.+.+..

Re: disjunct paths

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote: > Hi David, > * David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06. Dez. 2005]: > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:10:01PM +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote: > > > * David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [30. Nov. 2005]: > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:11:44PM +010

Re: disjunct paths

Hi David, * David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06. Dez. 2005]: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:10:01PM +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote: > > * David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [30. Nov. 2005]: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 08:11:44PM +0100, Gregor Zattler wrote: > > O.k. it's not very likely that an attacker is