How can I get a report like this without refreshing the keys, please?
gpg: depth: 0 valid: 17 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 17u
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:44 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> > On 06/16/2011 09:31 AM, David Shaw wro
On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Scott Lambdin wrote:
> How can I get a report like this without refreshing the keys, please?
>
> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 17 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 17u
Run "gpg --check-trustdb". By default --refresh-keys calls --check-trustdb for
you automatically,
> If this is going to be a thread about specification, then as I said I
> am keeping out of it until I hear from Werner. I'll address the
> non-specification comments though:
In fact, I think I'll keep out of the entire thread. I misunderstood
your original email as implying you are open for a pur
>> this discussion is much more interesting. Let's keep the arguments
>> about specification, usefulness, etc. out of this thread!
>
> Actually, i think usefulness and specification are quite important.
> Without them, this discussion is just noise to me.
If this is going to be a thread about spec
On 06/16/2011 02:27 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> this discussion is much more interesting. Let's keep the arguments
> about specification, usefulness, etc. out of this thread!
Actually, i think usefulness and specification are quite important.
Without them, this discussion is just noise to me.
> [dk
Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2011, 19:37:02 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> On 06/16/2011 12:55 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> > Probably not. Everyone seems to agree that timestamps in a normal
> > signature are somewhat meaningless and only serve as an indicator. If
> > you want a reliable timestamp, why not
Hey,
this discussion is much more interesting. Let's keep the arguments
about specification, usefulness, etc. out of this thread!
>> Probably not. Everyone seems to agree that timestamps in a normal
>> signature are somewhat meaningless and only serve as an indicator. If
>> you want a reliable ti
> Do you want to promote the uniform usage of notations (perhaps later taken
> over into IETF namespace) via this mailinglist and an officially maintained
> list of notations in the gnupg.org namespace or not?
>
> If you want to avoid notations in gnupg.org then the discussion is finished
> anyway.
On May 27, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Pramod.R wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks so much for your response on this.
>
> Now, when I tried decrypting a pgp encrypted file through a gpg (using the
> gpg --decrypt command), I'm running into this problem of "idea encryption (0)
> failed" even when I tried comp
On Jun 16, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 09:31 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> Line 9 is just a key count. You have 17 valid keys. All of them ("u") are
>> ultimately trusted, which suggests that you have 17 keys that you have
>> generated as ultimate trust is generall
On 06/16/2011 12:55 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> Probably not. Everyone seems to agree that timestamps in a normal
> signature are somewhat meaningless and only serve as an indicator. If
> you want a reliable timestamp, why not make a timestamp signature?
I don't think this is the general consensus.
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> (In the context below, "we" refers to the people to whom the
> respective statement applies.)
>
>> I got into this discussion because there was talk of new subpackets or
>> sigclasses and a misunderstanding of how notations worked.
>
> What tal
>> In any case, let's just use a notation and concentrate on that. The
>> 0x50, clarity/confusion, notation, 0x40, etc. discussion is wasteful
>> and not really fun.
>
> You still don't understand.
Really? Maybe *you* just haven't brought up all those issues until
now. Here's what I see:
Me: Guys
(In the context below, "we" refers to the people to whom the
respective statement applies.)
> I got into this discussion because there was talk of new subpackets or
> sigclasses and a misunderstanding of how notations worked.
What talk of new subpackets and signature classes? Feel free to quote.
Made a fresh install of Debian i386 6.0.1
with gpg 1.4.10 I was able to successfully generate 3072bit keys on
the card without any problems.
Now to roll back to FreeBSD 7 & try that.
Sevan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists
On 06/16/2011 09:31 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> Line 9 is just a key count. You have 17 valid keys. All of them ("u") are
> ultimately trusted, which suggests that you have 17 keys that you have
> generated as ultimate trust is generally used for people's own keys. (If you
> can't trust yourself,
Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2011, 14:56:32 schrieb Werner Koch:
> > This notation is a more compatible alternative to the signature type
> > 0x40. So its explanation could be used:
> >
> > "Timestamp signature. This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp
> > contained in it."
>
> That is a b
On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Jerry wrote:
> The "hkp server wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net" has been unreachable for several
> days at least from my locale. I was wondering if anyone had any
> information regarding it or who I could report this problem to?
wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net is intended to be a round-robin o
On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:50, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
>
>> According to whois, that's Werner and g10 code GmbH. Werner, can you
>> comment on any policy for use of @gnupg.org notations? Would it help if
>
> If it is a reasonable thing I see n
On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:32 AM, Jerome Baum wrote:
>>> So, how do you sign
>>> (i.e. timestamp) data that isn't already signed by someone else?
>>
>> You use a regular old 0x00 signature. 0x50 gives you capabilities that 0x00
>> doesn't. That doesn't mean 0x50 takes over all purposes of an 0x00.
The "hkp server wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net" has been unreachable for several
days at least from my locale. I was wondering if anyone had any
information regarding it or who I could report this problem to?
Thanks!
--
Jerry ✌
gnupg.u...@seibercom.net
___
On Jun 16, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Jerry wrote:
> This is probably a really dumb question; however, I am hoping that
> someone can answer it for me.
>
> On a FreeBSD-8.2 system, running "/usr/local/bin/gpg2 --refresh-keys"
> ends with the following output.
>
>
> gpg: Total number processed: 396
> gpg
This is probably a really dumb question; however, I am hoping that
someone can answer it for me.
On a FreeBSD-8.2 system, running "/usr/local/bin/gpg2 --refresh-keys"
ends with the following output.
gpg: Total number processed: 396
gpg: unchanged: 395
gpg: new signatures: 35
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:21, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said:
> OK but GnuPG is an infrastructure tool and not so much about personal
> preferences, isn't it? ;-) So the relevant questions should be:
I believe it is. However, I maintain GnuPG as a pro-bono service for
more than a decade now a
Am Donnerstag, 16. Juni 2011, 09:14:43 schrieb Werner Koch:
> This thread is way to long to follow
Especially as it is at least three threads with a common subject...
> in
> particular because I am not really interested in a general purpose
> timestamping service;
OK but GnuPG is an infrastruc
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 21:50, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> According to whois, that's Werner and g10 code GmbH. Werner, can you
> comment on any policy for use of @gnupg.org notations? Would it help if
If it is a reasonable thing I see no problem to register it and setup an
email alias or autore
26 matches
Mail list logo
