On 08/10/2011 12:32 PM, Smith, Greg E wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am having an issue where we have set a custom home directory for GPG
> and configured the registry entry for HKCU\GNU\GNUPG\HomeDir=... The
> script functions fine when someone is logged into the system with the
> user account exe
Hello,
I am having an issue where we have set a custom home directory for GPG and
configured the registry entry for HKCU\GNU\GNUPG\HomeDir=... The script
functions fine when someone is logged into the system with the user account
executing the script. However the script fails, when no one is
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 01:29:04PM +0200, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> So I found a solution \o/
>
> If I do:
> unset GPG_AGENT_INFO
>
> then the card works for my user, unfortunately it only does work in terminals.
> It does launch pinentry-gtk-2 when I sign an email with mutt, and so that
> cov
Hello!
When using gpgsm to encrypt a file, what is the primarily
intended recipient format?
gpgsm -e -r file_to_be_encrypted.ext
What to put in place of ?
Certificate were imported using gpgsm --import cert.pem,
it shows in gpgsm --list-keys. Certificate is self signed and
the only fil
On 10.08.2011, MFPA wrote:
> The output from gpg --dump-options shows that both spellings are valid
> (for v 1.4.11 at least).
Yes, now I see it, after you mentioned it. However, the manpage doesn't know
about
"armour", and that was the motivation for my mail.
___
So I found a solution \o/
If I do:
unset GPG_AGENT_INFO
then the card works for my user, unfortunately it only does work in terminals.
It does launch pinentry-gtk-2 when I sign an email with mutt, and so that
covers my usecase :)
Thanks to all!
Luis
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:39, gn...@lists.grepular.com said:
> Damn. I didn't run any automated tests... What other operations can only
> be performed a limited number of times with one of these cards? If I
> were to PGP sign or decrypt 10,000 emails would that eventually kill the
> card too?
Should
On 10/08/11 11:38, Werner Koch wrote:
>> 2011-08-10 10:16:02 scdaemon[5153] DBG: response: sw=6581 datalen=0
>
> Ooops,
>
> SW_EEPROM_FAILURE = 0x6581,
>
> it may be that you had no luck and got a faulty chip. Contact the
> supplier for a replacement.
>
> Or did you run a series of automa
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:23, gn...@lists.grepular.com said:
> 2011-08-10 10:16:02 scdaemon[5153] DBG: response: sw=6581 datalen=0
Ooops,
SW_EEPROM_FAILURE = 0x6581,
it may be that you had no luck and got a faulty chip. Contact the
supplier for a replacement.
Or did you run a series of autom
On 10/08/11 08:49, Werner Koch wrote:
> I suggest that you use gpg2 and not gpg.
I have now done this.
> Let's debug it. Please put the lines
>
> verbose
> debug 2048
> log-file /foo/scdaemon.log
>
> into ~/.gnupg/scdaemon.conf and kill a running scdaemon. Then run your
> signing command aga
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:31, gn...@lists.grepular.com said:
> gpg: verify CHV1 failed: general error
> gpg: signing failed: general error
> gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: general error
I suggest that you use gpg2 and not gpg. You should also update GnuPG
to at least 2.0.17. 2.0.14 is quite probl
11 matches
Mail list logo