On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:55, jbr...@me.com said:
> Any estimation of when GPGOL will be compatible with Outlook 2007? I noticed
> on your web site that it's in progress.
I have nor checked the last versions but the new GpgOL usually works on
OL 2007. The ribbon bar or whatever it is called puts t
On Friday, April 24, 2009, at 01:07AM, "Werner Koch" wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:15, jmoore...@bellsouth.net said:
>
>> GPG supports PGP/MIME without any trouble; but not all MUA's can handle
>> PGP/MIME. Most notably, all of the MUA's distributed by M$. :-\
>
>Well with GpgOL Outlook is ab
Werner Koch wrote:
> I have signed this message along with a simple text attachment as
> an example. Note that some version of the mailing list manager Mailman
> unfortunately breaks all kinds of signatures.
gpg: armor header: Hash: SHA1
gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v2.0.12-svn4945 (GNU/Lin
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
an example. Note that some version of the mailing list manager Mailman
unfortunately breaks all kinds of signatures.
I never noticed a break in the PGP/MIME styled signing through a mailing list.
Yours did come through just fine.
--
Allen
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:21, allen.schu...@gmail.com said:
> That's the format that attaches the .sig file to the email of the same email?
Right. It is a multipart message: One to contain the actual message,
including attachments and one with the detached signature of the first
part. I have signed
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:15, jmoore...@bellsouth.net said:
> GPG supports PGP/MIME without any trouble; but not all MUA's can handle
> PGP/MIME. Most notably, all of the MUA's distributed by M$. :-\
Well with GpgOL Outlook is able to parse PGP/MIME message. The newer
version even shows such mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Brian Mearns wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
>> That is why PGP/MIME is the only robust format and higly recommended
>> over of the simple clearsigning mode.
> Could you elaborate on this Werner? I'm not familiar with
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> That is why PGP/MIME is the only robust format and higly recommended
> over of the simple clearsigning mode.
That's the format that attaches the .sig file to the email of the same email?
--
Allen Schultz
___
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:12, bmea...@ieee.org said:
>> I just wanted to let people know that I finally woke up and realized that
>> messages I was signing and sending with Gmail are bad because the mail client
>
> That is why PGP/MIME is the only
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:12, bmea...@ieee.org said:
> I just wanted to let people know that I finally woke up and realized that
> messages I was signing and sending with Gmail are bad because the mail client
That is why PGP/MIME is the only robust format and higly recommended
over of the simple clea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Brian Mearns wrote:
> I just wanted to let people know that I finally woke up and realized that
> messages I was signing and sending with Gmail are bad because the mail client
> is inserting linebreaks in order to wrap lines. This is standard behavio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just wanted to let people know that I finally woke up and realized that
messages I was signing and sending with Gmail are bad because the mail client
is inserting linebreaks in order to wrap lines. This is standard behavior for
a lot of MUAs so that
12 matches
Mail list logo
