"Janusz A. Urbanowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:02:58PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
> >
> > Atom Smasher wrote:
>> > > gpg does support RSA-2048/SHA-256 (or even RSA-4096/SHA-512)
>> > > which is what i've been using for a while now. i'll sign
>> > > this email with RSA
On Jun 19, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> I wonder how many more people are going to tell me this, even after
> I've demonstrated that I understand the concept (I'm pretty sure I
> even signed that message!).
Just think of it as "review".
:)
_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Andrew Berg wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many more people are going to tell me this, even
>> after I've demonstrated that I understand the concept (I'm pretty
>> sure I even signed that messag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Janusz A. Urbanowicz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:02:58PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>
>> Atom Smasher wrote:
>>> gpg does support RSA-2048/SHA-256 (or even RSA-4096/SHA-512) which
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:02:58PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Atom Smasher wrote:
> > gpg does support RSA-2048/SHA-256 (or even RSA-4096/SHA-512) which
> > is what i've been using for a while now. i'll sign this email with
> > RSA-2048/
I'm sure I'll get there eventually. I tried generating some new keys on
the card today and after it appeared to successfully generate the keys
this error came up. Here's part of the output from gpg.
"James Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
Change (N)ame, (C)omment, (E)mail or (O)kay/(Q)uit? O
You ne
