Are you on some sort of drugs? I can not find anything that makes any
sense or has anything at all to do with the previous messages in this
thread you quoted. I see nothing here but the ramblings of a nutter.
What the heck is all of this nonsense and what does it have to do with
this thread?
On
On Mon 2019-01-21 08:29:35 -0900, justina colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:
> How can people be so insufferably rude?
How indeed.
Justina, please keep discussion on-topic and friendly for this mailing
list. Too many of your posts to the list are full of invective,
threating assault, or incoherently
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 17:29, justina colmena via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
> How can people be so insufferably rude?
O_o
A
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 08:29:35 -0900, justina colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:
[flush]
Regards
Stefan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Montag, 21. Januar 2019 18:29:35 CET justina colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:
[snip]
> You've got email problems at KDE.
>
> X-Authenticated-User?
This header has been added by my email provider, not by KMail.
Regards,
Ingo
___
Gnupg-users mailing
On January 19, 2019 9:56:00 AM AKST, "Ingo Klöcker" wrote:
>On Samstag, 19. Januar 2019 17:10:38 CET Stefan Claas wrote:
>> Method used with GnuPG:
>>
>> In gpg.conf i put: photo-viewer "cat > %K.%t"
>>
>> and then i used this one liner:
>>
>> for filename in ./*.pgp; do gpg --list-keys --list-
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:21:53 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
Hi Peter,
> - Take the User Attribute Packet
> - Strip off the header: 1 byte tag, and in my case, 2 bytes length
> (lengths are encoded on 1, 2 or 5 bytes)
> - Hash what's left
>
> So:
>
> $ gpg --export KEYID | gpgsplit
>
> Take a fi
Hello Stefan,
On 21/01/2019 12:46, Stefan Claas wrote:
> To compute the hash of an image one has to add a 22bytes header
> to the image and then the hash will be properly computed.
Since I didn't exactly follow the "22 bytes" part I looked at it one
more time; I got curious. It turned out I accid
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 20:27:33 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:22:10 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > On 20/01/2019 17:07, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > > I had a quick scan through the source code, but couldn't find it.
> >
> > Oops! I was looking at ancient code instead of the
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:22:10 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 20/01/2019 17:07, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > I had a quick scan through the source code, but couldn't find it.
>
> Oops! I was looking at ancient code instead of the current code. That's
> why I didn't find it. It's a RIPEMD-160 hash of
On 20/01/2019 17:07, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> I had a quick scan through the source code, but couldn't find it.
Oops! I was looking at ancient code instead of the current code. That's
why I didn't find it. It's a RIPEMD-160 hash of the attribute that
contains the JPEG image, but I'm not 100% clear o
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:07:23 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 20/01/2019 16:05, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Thanks, but it is still unclear to me what content of the user id
> > is taken. Here for example an old key from me:
>
> I had a quick scan through the source code, but couldn't find it. But i
On 20/01/2019 16:05, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Thanks, but it is still unclear to me what content of the user id
> is taken. Here for example an old key from me:
I had a quick scan through the source code, but couldn't find it. But it
seems to me it's likely to be a hash of the User Attribute Packet (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:22:08 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 20/01/2019 13:38, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > So taking the smallest image and looking at the %U part i am
> > wondering what key data is encoded in this base32 string?
>
> From the gpg man
On 20/01/2019 13:38, Stefan Claas wrote:
> So taking the smallest image and looking at the %U part i am
> wondering what key data is encoded in this base32 string?
From the gpg man page:
| --photo-viewer string
|This is the command line that should be run to view a photo ID.
|"%i
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:37:33 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:56:00 +0100, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > This will result in at most 1 image per key because your fake photo-viewer
> > overwrites photos for keys containing multiple photo-ids (%K.%t is
> > identical
> > for all phot
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:56:00 +0100, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Samstag, 19. Januar 2019 17:10:38 CET Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Method used with GnuPG:
> >
> > In gpg.conf i put: photo-viewer "cat > %K.%t"
> >
> > and then i used this one liner:
> >
> > for filename in ./*.pgp; do gpg --list-keys --l
On Samstag, 19. Januar 2019 17:10:38 CET Stefan Claas wrote:
> Method used with GnuPG:
>
> In gpg.conf i put: photo-viewer "cat > %K.%t"
>
> and then i used this one liner:
>
> for filename in ./*.pgp; do gpg --list-keys --list-options show-photo
> --keyring "${filename}"; done
This will result
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:23:33 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sat 2019-01-19 17:10:38 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Now i wonder why i have such high discrepancies in the numbers?
>
> jpegextractor looks like it uses a simple heuristic to find jpegs.
>
> in particular (quoting from
> htt
On Sat 2019-01-19 17:10:38 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Now i wonder why i have such high discrepancies in the numbers?
jpegextractor looks like it uses a simple heuristic to find jpegs.
in particular (quoting from
https://www.digiater.nl/openvms/decus/vmslt02a/net/jpeg-extractor.html):
jpe
Hi all,
while inspired by the replies from dkg and Damien, in the "gpg > addphoto"
thread, i tried to see if i can see how many images for photo-id's are in a
whole key dump and what size the images have.
I tried two methods.
With GnuPG[1]i saved out 32088 jpeg images from all single dump files,
21 matches
Mail list logo
