Hello.
On 09/09/2012 11:32 PM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 23:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>> On 09/09/12 22:04, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
>>> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
>>> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 23:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 22:04, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> > It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> > nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
>
> Are you talking about how an encryption/signing tool is
Am 09.09.2012 20:39, schrieb Peter Lebbing:
> On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
>> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
>
> Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up
> with
> security in mind. If you take a full-fledged editor tha
On 09/09/12 22:04, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
Are you talking about how an encryption/signing tool is not a text editor??
What's with the sudden demeaning criticism
On 09/09/2012 10:04 PM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
>
> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
Finally, *someone* gets it. You always have to push the bar of sec and
crypto. Not wallow in routines and compl
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 21:16, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
> > didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
> > model, and probably there is no real point for you to spe
Hi!
On 09/09/2012 09:16 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
>> didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
>> model, and probably there is no real point for you to speculat
On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
> didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
> model, and probably there is no real point for you to speculate about my
> (possible) family and my hard drive data a
Peter.
On 09/09/2012 08:39 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
>> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
>
> Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up
> with
> security in mind. If you take a full-fledged e
On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up with
security in mind. If you take a full-fledged editor that was never intended to
hide the contents, and then bolt
Hey folks :)
For the fun of it, I tried to parse a few weekly dumps (i.e. from here:
http://keys.niif.hu/keydump/) and very often,
not even GnuPG can successfully parse the packets, i.e. gpg
--list-packets fails. Usually with "gpg: mpi too large for this
implementation (56104 bits)" but there is a
Hi.
On 09/09/2012 11:16 AM, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 12:39 AM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
>> Could you recommend a safe text editor, in the sense it does protect
>> the edited contents in memory, but, most important, on the disk (temp
>> files and such). Having functions to interac
On 09/05/2012 12:39 AM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> Could you recommend a safe text editor, in the sense it does protect
> the edited contents in memory, but, most important, on the disk (temp
> files and such). Having functions to interact with gnupg would be even
> better.
>
> The point is to ed
13 matches
Mail list logo
