Meenal Pant wrote:
> Hello all,
> Can the "gpg --gen-revoke user" command be executed in batch mode? I am
> trying to generate revocation certificate for a gpg keypair through a
> Python script.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
$ gpg --batch --yes --gen-revoke "Test Key" > foo.asc
gpg: can't do this in batch m
Hello all,
Can the "gpg --gen-revoke user" command be executed in batch mode? I am
trying to generate revocation certificate for a gpg keypair through a
Python script.
Thanks
Meenal
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.or
Hi,
for those interested, there's going to be again a keysigning party at
Linuxtag 2008 in Berlin (May 30th):
http://wiki.linuxtag.net/w/Keysigning_2008
--
left blank, right bald
pgprFLK2anXpA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing
Michael Kesper wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Debabrata Das wrote:
>>
> I suppose that GnuPG did not move just for fun to GPLv3 but for a
> reason.
The reason is that the FSF released a new version of GPL. I understand
somewhat why a v3 was needed, and why some would prefer t
Dear David.
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 09:29 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> I think - and please understand I do not mean this as an attack on you
Of course not :)
> - that before someone proposes sweeping changes to an RFC, they must
> really understand the history and reasoning behind the original
I am a new GPG user. I have looked everywhere (manuals, bug site, mailing
lists, Google search, etc.) for information on this error, but have been
unsuccessful. My guess is that there is a simple solution to such a basic
error right out of the chute, but I need some help finding that answer.
Coul
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 08:41 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> I was pretty much getting out of this thread as non-useful, but I have
> to comment on this. It's not true. GPG does not export
> non-exportable signatures.
Hmm I wonder if it's worth the effort to publish a review on the RFC,
would ideas be
On Apr 16, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 08:41 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
I was pretty much getting out of this thread as non-useful, but I
have
to comment on this. It's not true. GPG does not export
non-exportable signatures.
Hmm I wonder if it's wor
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:44PM +0100, Debabrata Das wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Currently we are using GnuPG 1.4.7 which is under GPL V2 on HP-UX
> ,but we came to know that there is a security vulnerability on GnuPG
> 1.4.8 & earlier version.Since Gnupg 1.4.9 is under GPL V3 & we don't
> want t
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Arguing "GnuPG should support a nonconformant extension to the spec" is
> > probably not going to get much of anywhere.
> > > But I'd like to know it this leads to improved security or not:
> Specs are moving,... and im
Dear Werner.
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 09:42 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> What I meant are proofs based on the ability to decrypt a message. That
> is not going to work if you do not have an encryption subkey.
Could you please find the time to explain this further? Why would it
only work with an encry
Dear Robert.
On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 20:35 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > But it does not say that it has to contain the must-have algos.
> As has been mentioned here at least twice now, see section 13.2, where
> it explicitly says if the MUSTs are not listed, t
Hi all,
I have an issue with mail signatures in my mail setup and want to ask
whether anybody has experienced something similar and/or where to look for
a solution.
I standardly MIME-sign my mail using kontact, the kde PIM. Everything works
fine and the sent mails in the "sent mail" folder validat
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> I remember Werner saying that this was just nonsense.
>> Werner, can you correct me if I'm wrong?
>
> Not enough information above to say nonsense or not. There are silly
> ways to use challenges and non-silly ways.
What I meant are proofs ba
14 matches
Mail list logo
