Not sure if such things exist already, but hopefully they do, and
somebody could point me to them...
To go into a little more detail, I'd like to examine the WoT as it
exists between Gentoo developers, and try to work out a reasonable way
to close it for resurrecting our long-dead keyring.
Specif
Dear Tom
i followed the instructions of you ... i worked for me too like magic... Thanks
alot..
From: Tom Pegios
Subject: Re: gnupg installation problem
To: "GnuPG Users List"
Date: Friday, 6 August, 2010, 5:35 PM
Prasanth Thandra wrote:
>
> Hi,
> i am installing GNUPG 2.0.15 on RHEL4. As s
On 8/9/2010 1:48 PM, MFPA wrote:
> I worded that very badly. Rather than throwing away data, I was trying
> to suggest looking at it in more detail. As a whole from day 1 to day
> n, the proportion not encrypted to the key was x. Fine as far as it
> goes, but did the figures confirm or refute my ex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 8 August 2010 at 5:44:21 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Right, but at that point you're coming close to
> cherrypicking -- disregarding data points in order to
> reach a result that's more in line with your
> preconceptions. Nob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 9 August 2010 at 7:30:40 AM, in
, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> Actually, the number of encrypted messages that I
> originally posted was incorrect. The real number is
> 641. I replied to my original post and posted the
> correct num
Snaky Love wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> thank you very much for your explanation!
>
> May I ask a few final questions about this issue:
>
> - are there any tools at all that handle the "group crypto + archive"
> use-case satisfactory? (Yes, PM me your ads :)
> - what is the current state of research
I guess all you need is proper "read" and "write" privileges management.
Regards,
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Snaky Love wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to better understand: is gnupg good for big groups?
>
> I would like to encrypt communication in groups - not instant communication
> like
Hi David,
thank you very much for your explanation!
May I ask a few final questions about this issue:
- are there any tools at all that handle the "group crypto + archive"
use-case satisfactory? (Yes, PM me your ads :)
- what is the current state of research regarding groups and cryptography?
I
Hi.
I've just realised that policy URLs (--set-policy-urls) seem to be not
set on self-sigs (e.g. when resigning the key via changing the prefs or
so).
If that's not a bug,... why have you chosen not to put it on self-sigs?
AFAIU RFC4880 it's just the policy under which a signature was made.
So o
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:30:22 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> The interesting thing, is a lot of times the NETMK messages are caused
> by less active members who (somehow) broken their configurations.
Actually, the most amusing and bizarre mistake is that people sometimes
encrypt to only *their* key. Th
10 matches
Mail list logo
