Hello,
For some key in my keyring that GnuPG considers valid due to the web of
trust I would like to understand why it does so. I can list all the
signatures with --list-sigs, but is there any way (short to writing a
script myself) to mark those signatures that are actually considered
trusted?
T
On 08/22/2013 06:22 PM, Jasper den Ouden wrote:
>> The solution of course is as you urged takethe...@gmx.de , to get a
>> free operating system such as Linux or BSD, complete with free
>> build tools & compile your own (even non programmers can do that,
>> eg on an OS downloaded from http://www.
On Thursday, August 22, 2013, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> And the best way to do get started on the path to standardization is to
> provide a patch for an existing implementation (probably using an
> algorithm number from the experimental range [0] that implements it, to
> demonstrate feasibility
> The solution of course is as you urged takethe...@gmx.de , to get a
> free operating system such as Linux or BSD, complete with free
> build tools & compile your own (even non programmers can do that,
> eg on an OS downloaded from http://www.freebsd.org
Compiling your own fixes the issue of th
On 08/22/2013 10:05 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> The wording "GnuPG extends" seems inappropriate to me as it is indeed an RfC
> that extends 4880 in this way:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5581
I agree, it is inappropriate. On the other hand, I was not aware of the
RFC. Thank you for telling
On Aug 22, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 09:56 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
>> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia, but
>> I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
>
On 08/22/2013 09:56 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia, but
> I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
Camellia in OpenPGP is now a published part of the spec, complete
On Aug 22, 2013, at 9:56 AM, "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia, but
> I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
I think it was implemented in GnuPG first, but it's not a
Am Do 22.08.2013, 09:56:51 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> From section 9.2 of RFC4880, the following symmetric cipher profiles are
> defined:
>
> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
> Camellia-256.
The wording "GnuPG extends" seems inappropriate to me as it is indeed
On 08/22/2013 01:57 AM, Frank wrote:
> My apologies if this has come up before. I notice Serpent-256 is
> available in libgcrypt. Is it available in GPG?
No. SERPENT is not part of the standard OpenPGP cipher profile, and
GnuPG implements the OpenPGP specification quite closely.
>From section 9
My apologies if this has come up before. I notice Serpent-256 is available
in libgcrypt. Is it available in GPG?
Sincerely,
--
P.S.: I prefer to be reached on BitMessage at
BM-2D8txNiU7b84d2tgqvJQdgBog6A69oDAx6.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-user
On 15/08/13 09:45, ix4...@gmail.com wrote:
> But with this setup it seems like the process to sign someone else's keys
> (which
> needs to be done with the offline mainkey) will be complicated.
>
> How would I do that?
You would use an offline system which has the offline main key. Just copying
> I try to reply Peter. But it has bounced from his email id.
The mail got delivered to me without generating a bounce, or as my primary mail
server liked to put it:
2013-08-21 02:48:53 1VBwbV-00021r-DK <= prvs=93857aca4=snehendu.gh...@tcs.com
H=inmumg02.tcs.com [219.64.33.222] I=[83.161.152.50]:
13 matches
Mail list logo
