Am Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:28:32 +0200
schrieb "Dr. Thomas Orgis" :
> And even with it present, is it
> correct behaviour for gpgsm to consider the chain invalid instead of
> just the cross-signature? It _does_ trust the new root cert already …
> no need for any further signatur
chain invalid instead of
just the cross-signature? It _does_ trust the new root cert already …
no need for any further signature.
Regards,
Thomas
PS: Just for fun, I'm trying to sign this post now. Maybe it won't even
be broken by the list?
--
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamb
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2019 20:07:37 +0200
schrieb "Dr. Thomas Orgis" :
> The issue I see is that
> these certs are not even supposed to be in the chain!
> the presence of the old certificates stirs things up. When I create a
> fresh user and import the new key with its certs
'd like to
have understood first what happened here.
Regards,
Thomas
--
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamburg
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
I do something wrong?
Regards,
Thomas
--
Dr. Thomas Orgis
HPC @ Universität Hamburg
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Am Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:17:24 +0200
schrieb "Dr. Thomas Orgis" :
> But after that, claws-mail as well as gpgsm complain about
> the keys being ambiguous. Clearly, the call
No takers? I am the only one getting a fresh S/MIME cert? I now
modified claws-mail to add preferences to e
7;t anyone
else have issues with the accumulating number of old certificates?
(I am using GnuPG 2.1.21, gpgme 1.9.0., btw.)
Alrighty then,
Thomas
--
Dr. Thomas Orgis
Universität Hamburg
RRZ / Basis-Infrastruktur / HPC
Schlüterstr. 70
20146 Hamburg
Tel.: 040/42838 8826
Fax: 040/428 38 6270
smim
