On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>> Are you sure about that? "clean" strips off useless signatures (useless
>>> being defined as an invalid signature, a superseded signature, a revoked
>>> signature, and a signature from a key that isn't present on the keyring).
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 6/22/10 10:39 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> I'm not sure about the 2007 patent expiration - I recall it being
>> right around now, actually (2010-2011).
>
> A little digging around revealed the United States patent expiration:
> January 7, 201
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to operate
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to
operate orthogonally from every other keyserver I've seen. It
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
>
> The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to operate
> orthogonally from every other keyserver I've seen. It's HTTP-only, not
> queryable by a
On 6/22/10 10:39 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> I'm not sure about the 2007 patent expiration - I recall it being
> right around now, actually (2010-2011).
A little digging around revealed the United States patent expiration:
January 7, 2012.
I am not a patent attorney, I don't pretend to be an authorit
On 6/22/10 10:30 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Could the FAQ be updated then, assuming you speak with some authority?
I am correct, but I am not authoritative. I'm not one of the GnuPG
developers, so I have no authority to make declarations on behalf of GnuPG.
_
On Jun 22, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> The FAQ for IDEA states that "The official GnuPG distribution does not
> contain IDEA due to a patent restriction. The patent does not expire before
> 2007 so don't expect official support before then."
>
> (http://gnupg.org/docum
It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to operate
orthogonally from every other keyserver I've seen. It's HTTP-only, not
queryable by any of the open-source clients (in fact, it doesn't support
wildcard sear
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 6/22/10 10:09 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Is this very old and it's now supported? Or is it still not in for some
other reason (either oversight, legal, or other).
By modern standards, IDEA is not considered a promising cipher. There
On 6/22/10 10:09 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> Is this very old and it's now supported? Or is it still not in for some
> other reason (either oversight, legal, or other).
By modern standards, IDEA is not considered a promising cipher. There
are some very good theoretical attacks against
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey there,
The FAQ for IDEA states that "The official GnuPG distribution does not
contain IDEA due to a patent restriction. The patent does not expire
before 2007 so don't expect official support before then."
(http://gnupg.org/documentation/faq
Hi every one,
Do any one know about this problam:
GPG-ME crash after 246 data decryption, There is no problem in encryption.
the error is : no data
I am feeling that there is some memory issue which gpgme could not handle.
Thanks,
Kahnan
___
Gnupg-us
Am Dienstag 22 Juni 2010 19:29:32 schrieb David Shaw:
> That's one of the main uses for local signatures - the "I believe this key
> is valid for me, but I'm not willing to say so in public for everyone"
> case. That might be because of privacy, or it might be because Charlie is
> satisfied th
On Jun 22, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, an
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:51:58 -0400, Jameson Rollins
wrote:
> I think the situation Daniel points out is one of the better usages for
> local signatures, and probably the main reason for having them in the
> first place.
Actually, looking at the RFC 4880 now, I see that the original
definition de
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
> >
> > I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
> >
> > Alice has met Bob in person and has
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>>> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-expo
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>
> I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
>
> Alice has met Bob in person and has verified his key. Alice does not
> want this information to be pu
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:34, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
>> My name is Kahnan and I am looking to convert openpgp keys in to sexp
>> including key data ..
[I have not seen Kahnan mail (maybe spam filter issue). ]
The GnuPG SVN trunk has a lot of code to do the conversion. For
example:
gnupg/g10/
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:34, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> Explain 'sexp', please? When I hear someone talk about sexps, I think
> they're talking about LISP S-expressions. I don't know if that's what
> you have in mind.
This is likely about the S-expression format as used with spki.
Libgcrypt use
On 6/22/10 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>>> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
>>>
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to
On 06/22/2010 02:00 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> What do you think "local" signatures are, and what do you think they
> mean? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky, you're asking about
> "intuition," so it makes sense to address the base assumptions.)
non-exportable certifications are simply certificat
24 matches
Mail list logo
