"Hernâni Marques (p≡p foundation)" wrote:
> On 08.10.19 18:37, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>
>> Pity, but I hope it will be better that way. In particular I hope, that
>> Mozilla will not follow your example and won’t entice users to proprietary
>> isolated keyserver [0] instead of distributed SKS
On 08.10.19 18:37, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Pity, but I hope it will be better that way. In particular I hope, that
> Mozilla will not follow your example and won’t entice users to proprietary
> isolated keyserver [0] instead of distributed SKS network thus splitting the
> keybase. And won’
Andrew Gallagher:
> On 31/07/2019 13:36, David wrote:
>> Enigmail always defaults to the first set of keys one created
>
> Enigmail will default to the first set of keys in your keyring that
> matches the selection criteria. Do you have more than one ID on each
> key? Do you have more than one key
On 31.07.2019 14:26, David wrote:
> Consider the fact that for 30 times Enigmail refused to accept the
> passphrase for da...@gbenet.com
>
> I decided to send an encrypted email to Erich. When selecting his
> private key there was no automatic tick in postmaster. But a tick in
> Erich's public key
* da...@gbenet.com:
> People say "Oh your settings are wrong" But the FAIL to give the RIGHT
> SETTINGS!! And then go waffling on
People don't fail you. Your entitlement issues do. Falsely stating
software X cannot do Y when you are not using it right, expecting
answers on a s
On 31/07/2019 13:36, David wrote:
> Enigmail always defaults to the first set of keys one created
Enigmail will default to the first set of keys in your keyring that
matches the selection criteria. Do you have more than one ID on each
key? Do you have more than one key for each ID? This could be c
Patrick Brunschwig:
> On 31.07.2019 13:46, David wrote:
>> Hello Erich,
>>
>> I did what you said - associated each email address with it's own key.
>> I then shut down Thunderbird re-started and carried out the following test:
>>
>> Test One:
>>
>> I sent an encrypted and signed email to site-adm
Patrick Brunschwig:
> On 31.07.2019 08:56, David wrote:
>> Patrick Brunschwig:
>>> On 31.07.2019 00:36, David wrote:
Andrew Gallagher:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
>>
>> Hello Stefan,
>>
>> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does
On 31.07.2019 13:46, David wrote:
> Hello Erich,
>
> I did what you said - associated each email address with it's own key.
> I then shut down Thunderbird re-started and carried out the following test:
>
> Test One:
>
> I sent an encrypted and signed email to site-admin from postmaster. I
> rec
David:
> Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> here is, how I had thunderbird + enigmail running for several years with
>> two keys and without problems (I have switched away from thunderbird
>> since one year ago, because it got too heavy and slow for my taste):
>>
>> For each sending a
On 31.07.2019 08:56, David wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig:
>> On 31.07.2019 00:36, David wrote:
>>> Andrew Gallagher:
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
>
> Hello Stefan,
>
> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
> support this - you ha
Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users:
> Hi David,
>
> here is, how I had thunderbird + enigmail running for several years with
> two keys and without problems (I have switched away from thunderbird
> since one year ago, because it got too heavy and slow for my taste):
>
> For each sending address, I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi David,
here is, how I had thunderbird + enigmail running for several years with
two keys and without problems (I have switched away from thunderbird since
one year ago, because it got too heavy and slow for my taste):
For each sending addres
Robert J. Hansen:
>> That's why I am considering other solutions. I have been with
>> Thunderbird and Enigmail for over 20 years with one key pair -
>
> This is simply not possible, as Enigmail didn't exist until 2001. (It
> took until about 2003 before it became really usable.)
>
>
> _
Patrick Brunschwig:
> On 31.07.2019 00:36, David wrote:
>> Andrew Gallagher:
>>>
On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
Hello Stefan,
I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
>>>
>>> Tha
On 31.07.2019 00:36, David wrote:
> Andrew Gallagher:
>>
>>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Stefan,
>>>
>>> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
>>> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
>>
>> That is simply not true. I used eni
> That's why I am considering other solutions. I have been with
> Thunderbird and Enigmail for over 20 years with one key pair -
This is simply not possible, as Enigmail didn't exist until 2001. (It
took until about 2003 before it became really usable.)
_
Ralph Seichter:
> * da...@gbenet.com:
>
>> Enigmail will only work with ONE Key.
>> It does not recognise any other key than the first key that was
>> created.
>
> I use multiple keys with Enigmail and Thunderbird, and I have done so
> for years.
>
>> You don't think perhaps can not think - your
Andrew Gallagher:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
>>
>> Hello Stefan,
>>
>> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
>> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
>
> That is simply not true. I used enigmail with multiple keys for years without
* da...@gbenet.com:
> Enigmail will only work with ONE Key.
> It does not recognise any other key than the first key that was
> created.
I use multiple keys with Enigmail and Thunderbird, and I have done so
for years.
> You don't think perhaps can not think - your not too smart as to offer
> any
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users:
> David wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
>> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
>
> Ah, o.k. I never tried it, but it should be possible, with different
> accounts and keys (hopefully).
Ralph Seichter:
> * da...@gbenet.com:
>
>> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
>> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
>
> Nonsense! One can not only configure one PGP key per account (of which
> there can be many), one can even configure one key
* da...@gbenet.com:
> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
Nonsense! One can not only configure one PGP key per account (of which
there can be many), one can even configure one key per identity. Each
TB accoun
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 18:47, David wrote:
>
> Hello Stefan,
>
> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
That is simply not true. I used enigmail with multiple keys for years without
any issues. If you’re havin
David wrote:
Hi David,
> I have three email accounts with their own keys - Enigmail does not
> support this - you have to have one key and that's it.
Ah, o.k. I never tried it, but it should be possible, with different
accounts and keys (hopefully).
> Am downloading and installing claws mail n
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users:
> David wrote:
>
>> Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users:
>>> David wrote:
>>>
Hello Everyone,
I am looking for an alternative to Enigmail - which fails to work.
Any ideas as to a suitable replacement??
>>>
>>> You may check out another MUA, like Claws-Mai
David wrote:
> Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users:
> > David wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >>
> >> I am looking for an alternative to Enigmail - which fails to work.
> >> Any ideas as to a suitable replacement??
> >
> > You may check out another MUA, like Claws-Mail, which I used with
> > GPG plug
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users:
> David wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I am looking for an alternative to Enigmail - which fails to work.
>> Any ideas as to a suitable replacement??
>
> You may check out another MUA, like Claws-Mail, which I used with
> GPG plug-ins in the past. It worked fine!
David wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am looking for an alternative to Enigmail - which fails to work.
> Any ideas as to a suitable replacement??
You may check out another MUA, like Claws-Mail, which I used with
GPG plug-ins in the past. It worked fine!
Regards
Stefan
--
box: 4a64758de9e8ceded
thank you for being patient with super noobs like me
hope you will find some time to build those packages
in the meantime I'll keep on learning GnuPG
by the way distro-packaged 2.1.11 in /usr/bin/gpg2 and freshly compiled
2.2.4 in /usr/local/bin/gpg live peacefully together on my ubuntu 16.04
machi
On 25/02/18 15:45, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:> i thought you forgot about me)
It's all a matter of free time and willingness. If I have 5 minutes and
see a question I can quickly answer, I might do that. But if an answer
takes a lot of time, it will have to wait.
> I have a confession to make, too. Not
Hi Peter,
i thought you forgot about me)
thank you for your very detailed response
I have a confession to make, too. Not only I'm not a developer, but I'm
a fresh convert from os to linux). And it all started last year when I
stumbled upon gnupg just looking for a proper way to encrypt a flash dr
On 22/02/18 21:50, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
> my bad, I should have started a new thread, well noted
>
> on the other hand that's probably why I suddenly had all the big gnupg
> minds helping me)
Hehe, I think this is all just pure chance, it depends who has the time
to read and respond. I don't thin
Hi Peter,
thank for your attention to this smallest problem of mine which I
wouldn't even hope to have your attention for to begin with)
my bad, I should have started a new thread, well noted
on the other hand that's probably why I suddenly had all the big gnupg
minds helping me)
what a rewardi
On 22/02/18 21:17, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The only way in which this might work is if I misinterpreted "not
> co-installable", and 2.0 in /usr and 2.1+ in /usr/local is not actually
> an instance of "co-installation". But I don't think that's the case. It
> might also work by pure chance and break
On 22/02/18 18:10, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
> problem solved by configuring Enigmail to use the new gnupg location in
> /usr/local/bin/gpg (in the "Preferences" dialog, "Basic" tab, override
> the default setting /usr/bin/gpg2)
While my mind was idly mulling this over, I suddenly wondered if what
you
dear all,
thank you for your time and help
problem solved by configuring Enigmail to use the new gnupg location in
/usr/local/bin/gpg (in the "Preferences" dialog, "Basic" tab, override
the default setting /usr/bin/gpg2)
Dmitry
On 22.02.2018 19:14, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/2
Hi,
On 02/22/2018 02:21 PM, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
sudo make -f build-aux/speedo.mk INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local
[...]
*and all works fine in terminal*
however after installing Enigmail I get this error
You installed GnuPG 2.2.4 in /usr/local, but you still have an older
version in /usr.
Everyt
On 22/02/18 15:21, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
> sudo make -f build-aux/speedo.mk INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local
That would mean that GnuPG is in /usr/local/bin/gpg
Yet:
On 22/02/18 11:04, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
> Error - key extraction command failed
> /usr/bin/gpg2 --charset utf-8 --display-charset utf-8 --
Hi Werner,
yes, i am.
*I just manually compiled it on the fresh install of ubuntu 16.04 per
the below script:*
cd ~/Downloads
version=gnupg-2.2.4
wget https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gnupg/$version.tar.bz2
wget https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gnupg/$version.tar.bz2.sig
tar xf $version.tar.bz2
cd $vers
Hi!
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:04, bere...@hotmail.com said:
> gpg: skipped packet of type 12 in keybox
Are you sure this if gpg 2.2.4 ? The error looks more like this is a
gpg version < 2.1.20.
Type 12 are ring trust packets which are used internally by gpg. The
code which shows this error is
> For this purpose p≡p is offering the possibility to
> encrypt without any user interaction needed like managing keys.
So how do you perform out of band verification? Or is it just TOFU?
Andrew.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_
Robert J. Hansen écrivait (wrote) :
[...]
| And finally, let's run Enigmail's same command line:
|
| [rjh@localhost ~]$ /usr/bin/gpg2 --charset utf-8
|--display-charset utf-8 --batch --no-tty
|--status-fd 2 --fixed-list-mode --with-colons
|
You've been trusting FB by using this function, before you trust that app
:-)
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Jason Antony
wrote:
> On 2015-06-02 02:17, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
> > Now we just need a facebook app to generate keys ...
>
> But would you trust that app? :-)
>
> -- Jason
>
>
>
> _
On 22/05/2015 5:00 pm, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 23:58, b...@adversary.org said:
>
>> Is it possible that a keyserver running the old, buggy PKS code
>> (v. 0.9.something) mangled these keys?
>
> Yes, but that won't explain why the key binding signature is valid.
Okay, there's cle
On Thu, 21 May 2015 23:58, b...@adversary.org said:
> Is it possible that a keyserver running the old, buggy PKS code
> (v. 0.9.something) mangled these keys?
Yes, but that won't explain why the key binding signature is valid.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen reg
On 5/21/2015 at 3:45 PM, "Werner Koch" wrote:
>Some guy
>downloaded most RSA keys from a keyserver and tried to factor 1.9
>million moduli. They found 30 keys with a subkey having one of the
>first 1000 primes as a factor.
> I looked at 8 of those keys and
> found that 2 are likely PGP create
On 22/05/2015 5:37 am, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> These are all encryption subkeys. The third key is the one from
> H. Peter Anvin. I have not found one of the fingerprints given in the
> said blog posting: gpg removed it while importing the key. It is a bit
> disturbing that the other subkey liste
On Thu 2015-05-21 12:23:20 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Which key does he claim to have broken? If Mircea has broken your
> encryption-capable subkey (0xB8A6B74C001892C2) then he might only be
> able to decrypt messages sent to you, but not sign them.
>
> To provide him with an opportunity
On Thu, 21 May 2015 18:23, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> At least one of the keys he claimed to have broken is a degraded copy of
> one of H. Peter Anvin's actual subkeys, as Hanno Böck pointed out here:
That reminds if of a private discussion I had last autumn. Some guy
downloaded most RSA key
> Which key does he claim to have broken? If Mircea has broken your
> encryption-capable subkey (0xB8A6B74C001892C2) then he might only be
> able to decrypt messages sent to you, but not sign them.
He didn't say. You're correct in that I made an unfounded assumption;
thank you for the correcti
On Wed 2015-05-20 20:13:32 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> In the last couple of days a few different people have pointed me to
> Mircea Popescu's blog, where he's claimed he's broken ~150 keys that are
> in common circulation among the keyservers.
At least one of the keys he claimed to have brok
Am 16.03.2015 um 08:48 schrieb Werner Koch:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 23:38, st...@mailbox.org said:
>
>> Thanks, Werner. I read that, but I was particularly interested in how to get
>> GnuPG work with haveged.
>
> You should feed it into /dev/random or get into the kernel proper. This
> way all app
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 23:38, st...@mailbox.org said:
> Thanks, Werner. I read that, but I was particularly interested in how to get
> GnuPG work with haveged.
You should feed it into /dev/random or get into the kernel proper. This
way all applications can benefit from it.
> So, I guess it would n
Am 15.03.2015 um 20:50 schrieb Werner Koch:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:32, st...@mailbox.org said:
>
>> Now, I'll look for information on how RNG in GnuPG exactly works. It *seems*
>> that haveged should impact on the gathering of entropy (available) at the
>> moment
>> of keypair generation on any
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:32, st...@mailbox.org said:
> Now, I'll look for information on how RNG in GnuPG exactly works. It *seems*
> that haveged should impact on the gathering of entropy (available) at the
> moment
> of keypair generation on any GNU/Linux PC/laptop equipped with it (specific
You
Am 15.03.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Stephan Beck:
> Am 15.03.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
>>> Wouldn't the installation of haveged, at least for GNU/linux distros,
>>> extend the possibilities of traditional /dev/(u)random based RNG?
>>
>> No idea -- I haven't looked at haveged. Sorry. :(
Am 15.03.2015 um 13:59 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
>> Wouldn't the installation of haveged, at least for GNU/linux distros,
>> extend the possibilities of traditional /dev/(u)random based RNG?
>
> No idea -- I haven't looked at haveged. Sorry. :(
Well, I forgot to include relevant information (s
> Wouldn't the installation of haveged, at least for GNU/linux distros,
> extend the possibilities of traditional /dev/(u)random based RNG?
No idea -- I haven't looked at haveged. Sorry. :(
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lis
On 13/03/15 22:33, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> And if you don't trust /dev/urandom, I'd suggest using a different
> operating system, because that's a game-over compromise.
I trust both /dev/random and the sanity of the default settings of
GnuPG. And when I'm generating a key in GnuPG, I put my tru
On 3/13/15 2:17 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
On 2015-03-13 19:54, Doug Barton wrote:
But it is a
major source of frustration when folks take comments out of context to
use the tiniest bit of leverage with which to forward an agenda.
WHAT?!?!
It is true, text is a truly god awful medium to communi
Am 13.03.2015 um 22:33 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> GnuPG doesn't have one RNG. It has *many* RNGs. Some of them are
> really just thin wrappers over lower-level OS facilities. And if you
> don't trust /dev/urandom, I'd suggest using a different operating
> system, because that's a game-over com
> Make that: I trust the RNG of GnuPG. There's more to it than what is
> provided by the Linux kernel.
Be careful. When was the last time you checked the GnuPG code? And
when was the last time you checked the options your distro maintainer
used to build your GnuPG? :)
GnuPG doesn't have one R
On 2015-03-13 15:40, Peter Lebbing wrote:
I consider this the inferior of the two methods because I
trust the RNG of Linux much more than I trust the RNG of a smartcard
that costs a few euros to produce.
Make that: I trust the RNG of GnuPG. There's more to it than what is
provided by the Linux
On 2015-03-13 19:54, Doug Barton wrote:
But it is a
major source of frustration when folks take comments out of context
to
use the tiniest bit of leverage with which to forward an agenda.
WHAT?!?!
It is true, text is a truly god awful medium to communicate in.
We are apparently completely u
On 3/13/15 7:22 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
I interpreted Dougs message as saying that a disadvantage of smartcards,
as opposed to on-disk keys, is that you lose the key when the smartcard
stops functioning. I was replying to this statement by Doug:
Further, the inconvenience of having to deal wit
On 3/13/15 11:23 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Seriously? Wasn't it obvious from the context of what Robert and
I wrote that we were talking about keys that existed only on a
card?
Let's calm things down, folks. :)
FWIW, I'm perfectly calm, as in the sense of not angry. But it is a
major sourc
> Seriously? Wasn't it obvious from the context of what Robert and I
> wrote that we were talking about keys that existed only on a card?
Let's calm things down, folks. :)
We're communicating in a text medium. Sometimes, things we think are
obvious aren't obvious to others. Let's take a deep b
On 2015-03-13 15:31, Brian Minton wrote:
If a key is generated externally, a backup can be taken before the
key
is moved to the card. For a key generated on the card, there is (by
design), no way to extract the secret key, including for the purpose
of
backing it up
When you ask GnuPG to cre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
If a key is generated externally, a backup can be taken before the key
is moved to the card. For a key generated on the card, there is (by
design), no way to extract the secret key, including for the purpose of
backing it up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
I interpreted Dougs message as saying that a disadvantage of
smartcards, as opposed to on-disk keys, is that you lose the key when
the smartcard stops functioning. I was replying to this statement by
Doug:
Further, the inconvenience of having to deal with generating and
socializing a new key
> Of course not (I hope). You keep a backup of your key in a safe
> place. This goes for smartcard keys as well. The situation is the
> same whether you use a smartcard or not.
This is not true. There are a lot of use cases where "there are no
backups of this smart-card key" are baked into the se
On 12/03/15 20:17, Doug Barton wrote:
> Further, the inconvenience of having to deal with generating and
> socializing a new key if your smart card gets lost, becomes inoperable,
> etc. is way too high a cost for near-zero benefit.
And what if your hard drive holding your on-disk key crashes? Do y
On 12.03.15 20:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> My point was that you wrote multiple paragraphs worth of stories on
>> > two emails from which I really got the impression that people should
>> > just not bother.
> In response to someone who was thinking that storing keys on your hard
> drive was cat
> I would go so far as to say for the vast majority of users they are
> totally unnecessary. It's cool to play with smart cards, and I'm all
> in favor of that sort of thing ... but for the overwhelming number of
> PGP users the threat model just isn't there.
I dunno. I think there are some good
On 3/12/15 8:51 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
For many users, smart cards are a good idea. (I've got one myself.)
But for just as many users, smart cards are inconvenient and overkill.
I would go so far as to say for the vast majority of users they are
totally unnecessary. It's cool to play wit
> Yes, thanks a lot. From your answer I deduce that a single-user,
> non-professional environment may not require use of a smart card, or
> may not require it with the necessity it may have in high-security
> environments.
Yep! And just as importantly: it may require it. It depends on your
th
> My point was that you wrote multiple paragraphs worth of stories on
> two emails from which I really got the impression that people should
> just not bother.
In response to someone who was thinking that storing keys on your hard
drive was categorically unsafe, and that smart cards were categori
On 12.03.15 19:21, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> If you think I'm portraying them as "completely unusable," then I think
> you didn't bother to read my message very closely.
I read both of your messages quite closely. Had you merely pointed out
the downsides of having to carry a card, a reader etc. I
> That's quite a personal issue to count as a failing of smart cards.
Sure! And I even said that. "For many users, smart cards are a good
idea. (I've got one myself.) But for just as many users, smart cards
are inconvenient and overkill." Your use case isn't my use case.
That said, I've hear
Am 12.03.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
>> As to your enigmail essay, point 1, would you go that far that
>> keeping keys on hard disk is unsafe and using a smart card is a
>> must?
>
> If email crypto makes it hard to read email, few people will adopt the
> technology. We want technolo
> But for just as many users, smart cards are inconvenient and overkill.
> Frankly, they have awful usability, just terrible.
…
> finding the smart card is
> easy -- it's in my wallet -- but finding the smart card *reader* is the
> sort of thing that leads me to crazed conspiracy theories.
That's
> There are USB-Sticks with an embedded smart card controller that
> take away the burden to find a working card reader (which _is_ a real
> pain). The one we use has a standard CCID interface that works
> without driver installation on the majority of operating systems.
Yeah -- back in 2000 I use
On 03/12/2015 04:51 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> For many users, smart cards are a good idea. (I've got one myself.)
> But for just as many users, smart cards are inconvenient and overkill.
> Frankly, they have awful usability, just terrible. When I receive an
> email message encrypted to my sma
> As to your enigmail essay, point 1, would you go that far that
> keeping keys on hard disk is unsafe and using a smart card is a
> must?
For many users, smart cards are a good idea. (I've got one myself.)
But for just as many users, smart cards are inconvenient and overkill.
Frankly, they have
Hi Robert,
Am 11.03.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> "Things you're doing wrong with Enigmail" is a short (500-word) essay on
> four mistakes I repeatedly see Enigmail users making. However, it's not
> limited to Enigmail: most of the content is broadly applicable to any
> cryptosystem.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
On 07.12.14 21:36, Lucas Verney wrote:>
> Le 07/12/2014 21:25, Ludwig Hügelschäfer a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07.12.14 21:09, Lucas Verney wrote:
>>
>>> In Arch, with Thunderbird 31.2 and Enigmail 1.7.2, I can't get
>>> Enigmail to use Seahor
On 2014-07-20 07:17, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Enigmail 1.7 is already packaged and present in debian unstable and
debian testing.
I'll look into backporting it to debian stable later this week.
Thanks!
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send
Hi Philip--
over on enigmail-users,
On 06/16/2014 09:58 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
> me@me-desktop:~$ gpg --sign test-message
>
> You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
> user: "Philip Jackson "
> 2048-bit RSA key, ID 23543A63, created 2013-01-22
> (here I entered the passphrase)
> gpg
Hi,
Sorry, I was hoping I could find a solution for this so I could report
it but only got to a state where I've minimized the effects by avoidance
behaviour. :/
One "solution" to work around this would be to let my email program
always cache my key until the end of the session and only have this
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:50, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
>> GnuPG 2.x, and there is nothing Enigmail could do about it. AFAIR
>> there is an option in gpg-agent.conf to disable blocking the X session.
It is called --no-grab.
> Do any gnupg contributors have suggestions about the "fails to cache m
On 01/02/2013 04:55 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> On 01.01.13 19:57, Sini Ruohomaa wrote:
>> 1) The request popup to unlock my key blocks my _entire X session_,
>> also when TB is minimized, which I think seems needlessly rude. It
>> also doesn't cache my 'cancels' (so I can be asked for the pass
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:15, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> Out of the box, Outlook doesn't support PGP/MIME and won't even render
> the plain text portions -- or, at least, such was the case the last time
> I checked Outlook, which was some time ago: I try to avoid dealing with
It renders the plain
On 1/30/12 12:07 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> Outlook has PGP/MIME support via a plugin.
Out of the box, Outlook doesn't support PGP/MIME and won't even render
the plain text portions -- or, at least, such was the case the last time
I checked Outlook, which was some time ago: I try to avoid dealing wi
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:34, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> Fact two: it's easy to find MUAs, MTAs and other software in the chain
> that don't support (or outright break!) PGP/MIME. Outlook is a good
Outlook has PGP/MIME support via a plugin. Thunderbird has PGP/MIME
support via plugin. Both are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Allen Schultz escribió:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM, John Clizbe
> wrote:
>> If I don't know the purported key owner I select "I don't know."
...
> Or better yet, Faramir.cl told me to get CAcert.org's gpg key and sign
> it as it is a Certif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Condor Kim escribió:
...
> and what about gnupg itself? i saw in the synaptic that it's already
> installed. can it be used with thunderbird? how to use it on linux? is
> there a site that gives instruction? is there something on linux similar
> to g
Robert J. Hansen wrote the following on 2/9/09 1:07 AM:
> Condor Kim wrote:
>> e:icedove: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
>> e: enigmail: dependency problem -- leaving unconfigured
>> e: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure - a' to
>> correc
Condor Kim wrote:
> e:icedove: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
> e: enigmail: dependency problem -- leaving unconfigured
> e: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure - a' to
> correct the problem
This is an Icedove and/or Xandros error. It is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
[...]
>> This is what I have found, I am not quoting all the output, just the
>> beginning.
>
>> Initializing Enigmail service ... EnigmailAgentPath=/usr/bin/gpg2
>
> I think this says it all: Enigmail uses GnuPG from /us
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
