You have quite a few questions here. I'll answer them as they come up
inline.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:35:28PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Dear gnupg-users,
>
> I was using gpg 1.4.1 on Mac OSX 10.3.9. There
> appears to be a UI bug: if you want to use the
> "--edit-key" function and
Dear gnupg-users,
I was using gpg 1.4.1 on Mac OSX 10.3.9. There
appears to be a UI bug: if you want to use the
"--edit-key" function and you have more than one key
with the same name, that the UI will only list and
only operate on the one of the list of multiple keys
with the same name.
Why wo
Stan Rydzewski wrote:
>> Not that I take much glee in knowing there are things I can read on
>> linux that Windows users can't, but I thought that the man pages were
>> generally included with the windows builds and you could open them
>> with a text editor.
>
> Yes. They don't format as nicely,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:41:42AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's either a GnuPG problem or an RFC problem. It's possible to add
> or remove or modify text in a clearsigned message.
No, it is not. The RFC doesn't allow it. GnuPG doesn'
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please, if you want to continue to beat this drum, please beat it in
> front of the right people.
>
>> Fixing the RFC is probably not an option, but being more clear in user
>> documentation is. Not just the official GnuPG manual, but
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:57:25AM -0600, Matt wrote:
> I buy a drill, I know a hand crank or motor turns the bit, and the bit
> makes holes. I buy a refrigerator, its job is to keep food cool, I have
> now idea how it turns electricity into cooling - and it is not addressed
> in the manual, as lo
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> There are man pages, which can't be read under windows
>
> Not that I take much glee in knowing there are things I can read on
> linux that Windows users can't, but I thought that the man pages were
> generally included with the windows builds and you coul
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 12:40:18PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> p.s. of course I've altered his clearsigned post in this
> example. But it would still verify properly. This is my point.
The premise of the argument is false. You didn't alter his
clearsigned post.
David
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's either a GnuPG problem or an RFC problem.
It's a GnuPG bug if and only if it is not behavior specified by the RFC.
Given that GnuPG is correctly implementing the RFC here, that
means--drumroll, please--it is not a bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's either a GnuPG problem or an RFC problem.
It could also be a PEBKAC. :)
> It's possible to add or remove or modify text in a clearsigned
> message. If that's what the RFC allows, then the RFC is broken. If
> the RFC doesn't allow it then GnuPG is broken.
It is nei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Remco Post wrote:
> Now, this is true for you and me. Now, take my secretary as an example.
> She has not installed any pgp/gpg aware software, nor is she an
> experienced user of cryptographic tools. Do you expect her to correctly
> interpret these
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Does it say that the comment lines I read
>> in the (clearsigned) message before running it through GPG are not
>> part
>> of the signed message, that any third party between the sender and me
>> could have altered them?
>
> I would think the line "- BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
>From: Robert J. Hansen
>Subject: Re: comment and version fields.
>Date: 2007-04-02 15:46:17 GMT (1 day, 5 hours and 41 minutes ago)
>>From: Randux
>> No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not concerned with the
>> technical user who posts a question to a news list and understands
>> the issue. I
> Not that I take much glee in knowing there are things I can read on
> linux that Windows users can't, but I thought that the man pages were
> generally included with the windows builds and you could open them
> with a text editor.
Yes. They don't format as nicely, but you can read them. In any
Matt wrote:
> Now I haven't read the OpenPGP RFC, but if it is anything like the other
> RFCs that I've looked at (but been unable to read) its language is the
> worst possible combination between a lawyer and an engineer. Designed to
> kill all interest in the subject before getting down to the su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
> Does it say that the comment lines I read
> in the (clearsigned) message before running it through GPG are not
> part
> of the signed message, that any third party between the sender and me
> could have altered them?
I would think the line "
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> This is a nonissue. I can't think of a stronger way to put it. The
> mutability of the comment and version string is well known and
> clearly documented in the RFC.
It is well known to people who have followed PGP & GPG for years, some
who didn't watch as well will see
17 matches
Mail list logo
