Maury Markowitz wrote:
> So after finally deciding to trust that gpg was giving me an accurate
> error, and that the passphrase really was wrong, I spend the last week
> scaring up someone within the labyrinths that could actually change
> the key to the one that we know works. Presto! Working file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
From: Maury Markowitz
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:10:47 -0500
Subject: _almost_ working, now a command line question...
All that's left now is to fully automate this, and my Windows CMD
noobishness is an issue. Here's my command line:
O:\Utilities
So after finally deciding to trust that gpg was giving me an accurate
error, and that the passphrase really was wrong, I spend the last week
scaring up someone within the labyrinths that could actually change
the key to the one that we know works. Presto! Working file.
Lesson learned: You CAN simp
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but GPGOL as currently existing cannot deal
> with PGP/MIME, right?
It can decrypt and verify PGP/MIME but tehre a couple of minor
problems. In fact we use a complete MIME parser here.
The latest GpgOL incarnation doe
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > I don't see how a keysigning party works. Anybody that
> > participates by showing ID is reducing their personal
> > privacy by divulging their personal information.
>
> The basic assumption is that a key signing is good and that
> you actually gain something from it
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Brian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see how a keysigning party works. Anybody that participates by
> showing ID is reducing their personal privacy by divulging their
> personal information.
The basic assumption is that a key signing is good and th
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> personally, the only way i'd issue a level 3 signature on a key is if i
> know the person in some capacity. if i just meet someone at a keysigning
> party the best they could hope for is a level 2 signature.
That is pr
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Sven Radde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Being german, I am really baffled by this question...
> I have only one personal identity card and it is really sufficient to
> prove my identity to anyone. I could bring along my traveller's passport
> but that one is i
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:09 AM, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some people include a policy URL in the certification to tell a
> recipient just what was done. This has its own advantages and
> disadvantages, but is really a comment as well, as no program parses
> and acts on the in
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:51 AM, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't go crazy here: keep in mind that the web of trust is
> designed for people who don't have the ability to prove that a
> passport or license is real. This is one of the reasons that more
> than one signature i
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be helpful for you to think about things in terms of not just how
> many identity documents are present, but the relative difficulty in
> forging identity documents, as well as your ability to spot forgeries.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because of these three factors--no semantic meaning associated with
> certification levels, some OpenPGP implementations not supporting the
> distinctions, and many implementations making it easy to forget that
> s
12 matches
Mail list logo
