Hi!
Robert J. Hansen schrieb:
> After a little thought, it occurred to me that perhaps Sven meant there
> are three errors and it's not known where.
I also meant something like some 512 bytes of the file being unreadable
because of failure of the corresponding disc sector.
But I agree that singl
On Feb 27, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
For long-term photographic storage, make a print from photographic
film
on archival-quality print stock. Also, I'm given to understand that
black and white photographs survive the aging process much better than
color.
It's because black a
John Clizbe wrote:
> Christopher J. Walters wrote:
>> I know quite enough about the field without your snide and foolish remarks.
>> I
>> refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
>
> Statement one: I'll ignore as other readers may make their own opinions
> as to the quality
(Replying to David, but it's really for Joseph)
David Shaw wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
>
>> Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING
>> them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any
>> computer-based technology. And,
John Clizbe wrote:
> All too often we see folks too overly invested in a creation to accept
> objective criticism of the idea.
There also seems to be a tendency to misread what I think are very
neutral statements as being very dry snark.
E.g., when I said I didn't see the reasoning, and having re
On Feb 27, 2009, at 6:25 PM, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
Okay, I've resisted getting into this discussion long enough, and I
can't stands no more!
Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING
them? I think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any
computer-bas
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:22:56PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Hard drives tend not to crash or overheat when they're powered down,
> properly mothballed, and put in long-term storage.
Unless your photos are made for your grandchildren only, I don't believe
in a personal "dead" long-term sto
Christopher J. Walters wrote:
> I know quite enough about the field without your snide and foolish remarks. I
> refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Statement one: I'll ignore as other readers may make their own opinions
as to the quality of knowledge demonstrated.
All
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I said 'about'. JPEG was standardized in 1994; PNG in 1996; SVG in 2001.
>
>> So tell me, what compression software are *you* talking about?
>
> Wavelets. Fractals. Arithmetic coding. The data compression field is
> alive and well and constantly getting better. Chec
Christopher J. Walters wrote:
> I did, later in my message.
I didn't see it. Looking over it, I still don't.
> I come from the early days of Fidonet, and BBS's. It is possible for
> a CRC32c checksum to show "OK" when there have been changes. Has
> always been this way. If you use an archiver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Christopher J. Walters wrote:
>> That's why it would be a good idea, in my opinion, to use a public
>> key pair, and a weaker cipher than AES to encrypt data like family
>> photos.
>
> I cannot for the life of me see what's
Okay, I've resisted getting into this discussion long enough, and I can't
stands no more!
Since we're talking about photos, what would be wrong with PRINTING them? I
think a printed photo would last a lot longer than any computer-based
technology. And, you could store them in shoeboxes.
Christopher J. Walters wrote:
> That's why it would be a good idea, in my opinion, to use a public
> key pair, and a weaker cipher than AES to encrypt data like family
> photos.
I cannot for the life of me see what's leading you to give this counsel.
Would you care to share your reasoning?
> I wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Sven Radde wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It is probably one of the best choices for the purpose, however, in
> general, long-term archival and encryption don't go together nicely.
> Neither does compression or similar. Many algorithms or encryption modes
> are r
I have been tasked with installing GnuPG and GPG Shell onto Windows XP
(then onto Windows Vista) to decrypt data files currently using PGP
Command-Line software.
I have installed GnuPG for Windows (version Version 1.1.4 ) from the
http://gpg4win.org/ website. It appears to load successfully, but
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> With a 256-bit cipher, if you're missing 3 bits, there are only eight
> possible keys. This is not an obstacle.
After a little thought, it occurred to me that perhaps Sven meant there
are three errors and it's not known where. This turns into a slightly
more complex cas
Dear all,
I would like to write a cgi using perl to encrypt some text files in
Windows, the following is my program test.cgi. in the $cmd, Henry is a
public key generated by gpg, and 451080.txt is the files I would like to
encrypt.
#!c:/Perl/bin/perl.exe
print "Content-type: text/html\n\n";
$cm
Sven Radde wrote:
> Imagine the session-key part of an OpenPGP message be destroyed.
> Commonly, this will be far less than 1% of the actual data, but even
> with 99% intact, you won't have a chance of recovering *anything* from it.
Err. What?
With a 256-bit cipher, if you're missing 3 bits, the
Sven Radde email at sven-radde.de
wrote on Fri Feb 27 14:55:39 CET 2009 :
>When using encrypted backups, 100% data integrity plays a much
greater
>role than when just storing unencrypted data.
for really long term encryption,
would guess that it is more likely that there would be a problem
wit
Hi!
Robert J. Hansen schrieb:
> GnuPG conforms to the OpenPGP standard for cryptography. That means
> there are ... what ... 14 or so compatible implementations. You don't
> have to rely on GnuPG; there are a lot of other options out there. This
> is very good for purposes of long-term storage.
peter wrote:
> Is it true to say then, that if you wanted someone to be able to
> decrypt a (symmetrically encrypted) file, they'd need to know the
> algorithm used, the key and they'd also have to use the same program
> to decrypt as used to encrypt the file?
Let's not use words like "algorithm"
> Is it true to say then,
> that if you wanted someone to be able to decrypt a
> (symmetrically encrypted) file, they'd need to know the algorithm used,
> the key and they'd also have to use the same program to decrypt as used
> to encrypt the file?
Not quite. In general: you shouldn't base the se
Thanks for all your responses - and the speed of them.
The shoe box works fine for my pre-digital snaps - not so good for the
post digital ones! Currently, I dump my camera into my computer, sort
out the interesting images, archive them and dump the archive into
Amazon's S3. Then I feel safe from
23 matches
Mail list logo
