-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Was Fri, 07 Apr 2006, at 01:31:40 +0400,
when lusfert wrote:
> Is it possible to change date format in GPG output?
I tried this to figure out many times but couldn't.
I also expected that GPG will take over the local User's setting of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
jkaye wrote:
> I know that for PGP, there's an environment setting that
> can be used to prevent this. Is there a similar thing for
> GnuPG, or do I have to jump through some hoops?
Hmm.Let me see if I've understood you. You desire to use G
Hi all,
I'm new to GnuPG, and have been getting some help
from a kind soul. I seem to have all the knowledge
that I need with one single, but important, exception.
When I decrypt, it asks for my passphrase. No problem
there except for the fact that I want to have an automated
script on a unix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Shaw wrote:
> OS setting via LC_TIME, according to Microsoft, though I have no idea
> how to set it on win32.
Right Click on the Clock, Select Setting Time/Date.
JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Thursday 06 Apr 2006, 18:36 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
-
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:01:57AM +0400, lusfert wrote:
> David Shaw wrote on 07.04.2006 1:43:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:31:40AM +0400, lusfert wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to change date format in GPG output?
> >
> > GPG uses whatever the OS specifies as the date format. It is
David Shaw wrote on 07.04.2006 1:43:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:31:40AM +0400, lusfert wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> Is it possible to change date format in GPG output?
>
> GPG uses whatever the OS specifies as the date format. It is not
> something that is changeable by GPG - you need to set the date fo
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:31:40AM +0400, lusfert wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Is it possible to change date format in GPG output?
GPG uses whatever the OS specifies as the date format. It is not
something that is changeable by GPG - you need to set the date format
in your OS.
David
__
Hi.
Is it possible to change date format in GPG output?
When I see
D:\>gpg --verify gnupg-w32cli-1.4.3.exe.sig
gpg: Signature made 04/03/06 14:42:33
gpg:using RSA key 0x1CE0C630
gpg: Good signature from "Werner Koch (dist sig) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
I don't understand what date do
>> default-key !keyid
>doesn't work, ;-((
but what *does* work, is:
default-key keyid!
here is the gpg output with the option of
default-key 0x5AA20C866A589A97!
$ gpg --clearsign c:/r/1234.txt
You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: "vedaal nistar (preferred e-mail addr
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on
Thu Apr 6 18:09:20 CEST 2006:
> default-key !keyid
doesn't work, ;-((
(does it need any additional input? )
here is the command line output (using cygwin):
first,
with the existing option of
default-key 0x5AA20C866A589A97
$ gpg --clearsign c:/r/1
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:57:56AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on
> Thu Apr 6 17:03:44 CEST 2006 :
>
> >PGP generated keys are not any different than GPG generated keys
> in
> >this regard. Go ahead and use a ! if you like.
>
> yes,
> but currentl
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on
Thu Apr 6 17:03:44 CEST 2006 :
>PGP generated keys are not any different than GPG generated keys
in
>this regard. Go ahead and use a ! if you like.
yes,
but currently only from the command line
what i was asking for,
is a 'option' equivalent to '!'
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 09:51:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Message: 6
> >Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:02:16 -0400
> >From: David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: 1.4.3 // proper syntax for --edit-key cross-certify ?
>
> >PGP does not generate signing subkeys. You generated a RSA
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:02:16 -0400
>From: David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: 1.4.3 // proper syntax for --edit-key cross-certify ?
>PGP does not generate signing subkeys. You generated a RSA
>encryption
>key that happened to be without key flags (I guess that version of
At Thu, 06 Apr 2006 11:24:25 +0200,
Werner Koch wrote:
> > * Why should the key on the card not be used for key signing?
>
> Either becuase people feel that 1024 bit RSA/SHA-1 is not strong
> enough
Yes, one reads this and that: Some say 1024 may become easily crackable
[1] in the upcoming years
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 18:22:35 +0200, Felix E Klee said:
> * What are those problems that one may encounter with RSA?
You can't load a non-1024 bit RSA key to the card. RSA keys are
optional in OpenPGP and thus some implementaions may not be abale to
use your key.
> * Why should the key on the car
16 matches
Mail list logo
