On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> My purpose was more to get the OP thinking in terms
> of better procedures for an automated process, and to try to point out
> that the current behavior of gnupg doesn't seem to be a bug.
>
>
> hth,
>
> Doug
>
That's still what I'm confused ab
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> You're approaching this problem from the standpoint of unattended
> usage, which is not how the current command line behavior was intended.
>
>
> Doug
>
Okay, I can work around it in a satisfactory fashion. My personal
problem is solved.
Now,
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Andrew Flerchinger wrote:
> > Yes, I do see that behavior. The primary difference is that I never want
> > it to prompt me for anything, since I'm writing a headless wrapper.
>
> What you're suggesting isn&
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:10 PM, wrote:
> Andrew Flerchinger icrf.ml at gmail.com
> wrote on Mon Mar 16 14:10:31 CET 2009 :
>
>
> > If I pass in --yes, it does indeed overwrite as I'd
> > If I don't, it does NOT overwrite the file.
>
> > it
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18 PM, wrote:
> Andrew Flerchinger icrf.ml at gmail.com
> wrote on Wed Mar 11 21:15:20 CET 2009 :
>
> > My problem is when I don't tell it to overwrite
> > and the target exists, it looks like it
> > properly decrypted the file,
>
I'm in windows trying to run gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.9 (Gpg4win 1.1.4) in batch
mode, completely non-interactive. I can encrypt a file like this:
gpg --passphrase **PASS** --trust-model always --batch --output
"test.txt.pgp" --sign --recipient **RECIP** --encrypt "test.txt"
and it runs fine. If I do it a
