Re: Typo found in gpg 1.4.3

2006-05-07 Thread Trevor Smith
On 7-May-06, at 7:17 AM, markus reichelt wrote: po/de.po:msgstr "%d marignal-needed, %d complete-needed, %s Trust-Modell\n" I guess it should be "marginal-needed" and "Trust-Model". -- Trevor Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP.sig Description: This is a

Re: dealing with password in batch file

2006-04-21 Thread Trevor Smith
ly you need to modify this somewhat to run on DOS (or Windows, or whatever it's called these days) but it may point you in the right direction. -- Trevor Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: More questions about: "gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected"

2006-04-10 Thread Trevor Smith
) Incidentally, AES256 is really, really strong. How strong is your public key? In most cases, the public key is not as strong as AES256, Thanks. That's also an excellent point. (Naturally, my public key is not 15360-bit.) -- Trevor Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___

Re: More questions about: "gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected"

2006-04-09 Thread Trevor Smith
also forcing asymmetric encryption to use AES256 as the session cipher, which might cause problems. Then again, if I send emails that I might not want people to decrypt 5 or 10 years from now, would I want session ciphers to be defaulting to AES256 instead of CAST5? Why is this the default?

More questions about: "gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected"

2006-04-09 Thread Trevor Smith
ers from a weakness that AES256 does not. Is this true? -- Trevor Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users