On Thursday 09 December 2010 07:14:53 Ben McGinnes wrote:
> Hello,
> I am giving very serious thought to creating new keys and
> doing a (long-term) transition to them. This is partly to respond to
> known flaws with SHA-1 and take advantage of SHA-256 and higher.
>
> There is currently a p
I foward this message to the list. It seems that reply-to of the mailing-list
configuration is not correctly set...
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: Testing with card, some questions
Date: Tuesday 16 November 2010, 11:40:49
From: "J. Ottosson"
To: Sven Klomp
On Tuesday 16 November 2010 11:05:05 J. Ottosson wrote:
> Even more puzzling (which lead me to believe that the backup just mentioned
> above was not made from card?) is that after having removed the card I could
> still see the card details(!).
This seems to be a bug of scdaemon. Kill the daemo
On Thursday 11 November 2010 12:58:26 Hauke Laging wrote:
> > Thus, other software may behave differently. I think, I
> > have to revoke one key to avoid problems...
>
> Why should any problems arise from that? As long as the sender can encrypt
> and
> the recipient can decrypt... Doesn't matt
On Wednesday 10 November 2010 20:20:13 Hauke Laging wrote:
> I created some more subkeys to check that...
>
> For 2.0.15 you are right in one point and wrong in the other. It is the newer
> creation date which is chosen not the longer remaining validity period. But
> the newer key wins against t
Hi,
On Friday 05 November 2010 11:58:13 Sven Klomp wrote:
> since I bought a Crypto Stick [1], I had to add an additional RSA sub-key for
> encryption, since the stick doesn't support Elgamal. Thus, I have two
> encryption keys in my public keyring now. How does gpg decide which
Hi,
since I bought a Crypto Stick [1], I had to add an additional RSA subkey for
encryption, since the stick doesn't support Elgamal. Thus, I have two
encryption keys in my public keyring now. How does gpg decide which one to use
for encryption? I thought, that every key is used and I can decid
