On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> why must the identity be revealed at all, if the key-owner who
> designated the revoker doesn't want it to be?
>
> it doesn't add to the security to know who revoked it, (whoever it as,
> it was someone the 'key-owner' decided it should be) it only
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 09:43:52AM -0800, Randy Burns wrote:
> > > OTOH, addresses taken from the addressbook as available on the host
> > > (== zombie Windows PC) are much more effective than harvesting the web
> > > or kyeservers. These local addresses are more certain to actually be
> > > used
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:21:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on
> Thu Feb 1 21:04:27 CET 2007
>
> >The idea behind this is that the relationship
> >between the designated revoker and the key owner is sensitive,
> > and so we must not reveal the i
> When exporting a key that has a sensitive designated
> revoker set, the key is exported, but the designated revoker
> information is not included. Anyone looking at the key from the
> outside cannot tell the difference between this state, and no
> designated revoker set at all. However, if the
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on
Thu Feb 1 21:04:27 CET 2007
>The idea behind this is that the relationship
>between the designated revoker and the key owner is sensitive,
> and so we must not reveal the identity designated revoker
>until we absolutely must
>(i.e. when they actuall
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:23:58AM -0800, snowcrash+gnupg-users wrote:
> if i've added a designated revoker to a key, WITH the 'sensitive' flag.
>
> am i correct that:
>
> (1) the 'sensitive' flag prevents the *export* of the add'l/designated
> revoker's key
> (2) the keyservers still learn/know
if i've added a designated revoker to a key, WITH the 'sensitive' flag.
am i correct that:
(1) the 'sensitive' flag prevents the *export* of the add'l/designated
revoker's key
(2) the keyservers still learn/know that there IS a designated
revoker, AND its KeyID/UID
?
thanks.
__
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> ---Begining of .bat file --
> @echo off
> cls
> echo Verifying...
> %1\gpg.exe --homedir %2 --langfile %1\gnupg.nls\es.mo --verify %3
> ---End of .bat file ---
You may already
--- David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 05:20:20PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >
> > > etc. Nowadays, many spammers aren't using their own bandwidth or
> CPU.
> > > So why *not* hit the keyservers? It costs them
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com
Wed Jan 31 22:19:33 CET 2007 wrote:
> Indeed. It is also possible that the keyservers aren't being
targeted
>specifically as keyservers, but rather that people have links to
>keyserver searches out there, and the spammers are just using a
>crawler that happens
10 matches
Mail list logo
