On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:34, n...@copblock.app said:
> I would like to bring up my own keyserver for my company, which would
> contain only those keys which have been signed by one or more authorized
> people.
I would suggest to use LDAP - best OpenLDAP or Active Directory. See
https://gnupg.org/bl
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 07:46:55AM +0100, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Remco Rijnders [110321 07:35,
> mID <412.a...@winter.webconquest.com>]:
>
> > While I fully agree on bottom posting being preferred, I wonder if it's
> > not a lost battle already. People quoting 'properly' are i
Hi,
* Remco Rijnders [110321 07:35,
mID <412.a...@winter.webconquest.com>]:
> While I fully agree on bottom posting being preferred, I wonder if it's
> not a lost battle already. People quoting 'properly' are in such a
> minority that I don't think this can be changed around anymore. Of cou
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:26:03PM +0100, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
Really? For me, it is much easier to access the newest reply instead of
using the Down Arrow key to find it. Gmail always worked the same way
for me.
You might want to read [1,2,3].
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Fellows/mk/EmailGu
Something to think about that one. I guess I will experiment in the
future, but I understand what you mean and you do have a point with the
question > answer order rather than the reverse. Now I understand why
Thunderbird has that option.
On 20/03/2011 05:35 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 03/20/2011
On 03/20/2011 05:16 PM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> Really? For me, it is much easier to access the newest reply instead of
> using the Down Arrow key to find it. Gmail always worked the same way
> for me.
>
Ingo's talking about the body of the message. Most mailing lists people
reply after the questi
On 21/03/11 8:16 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> Really? For me, it is much easier to access the newest reply instead of
> using the Down Arrow key to find it. Gmail always worked the same way
> for me.
It does make it easier to follow a conversation in context if multiple
sections of a conversation are
Hi,
* Jonathan Ely [110320 22:18,
mID <4d866ead.9080...@gmail.com>]:
> Really? For me, it is much easier to access the newest reply instead of
> using the Down Arrow key to find it. Gmail always worked the same way
> for me.
You might want to read [1,2,3].
[1] https://wiki.fsfe.org/Fellows/
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 21/03/11 5:11 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> > The attached .asc file causes problems? I have disabled that but
> > still enabled the header. Why would the .asc attachment option be
> > there if it causes problems?
>
> The .asc file is the GPG signature
Really? For me, it is much easier to access the newest reply instead of
using the Down Arrow key to find it. Gmail always worked the same way
for me.
On 20/03/2011 04:44 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2011, Jonathan Ely wrote:
>> On 20/03/2011 03:35 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>>> To be
On 03/20/2011 04:31 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 21/03/11 6:48 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
>>
>> I do not use the Gmail interface any more; I only use the
>> Thunderbird client and typed the signature in the edit field found
>> in the Tools | Account options | General dialogue. It always appears
>> in
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> On 20/03/2011 03:35 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> > To be sure that a text signature is appended without interfering
> > with the digital signature, it should appear in the body of the
> > message when you edit it. Thunderbird is quite capable of doing
>
On 21/03/11 6:48 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
>
> I do not use the Gmail interface any more; I only use the
> Thunderbird client and typed the signature in the edit field found
> in the Tools | Account options | General dialogue. It always appears
> in the body, right under the point where I type. If th
I do not use the Gmail interface any more; I only use the Thunderbird
client and typed the signature in the edit field found in the Tools |
Account options | General dialogue. It always appears in the body, right
under the point where I type. If this is the case it should not
interfere with Enigmai
On 21/03/11 6:11 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> Firstly, what is MUA? I hear that but am not sure what that means.
MUA = Mail User Agent, e.g. Thunderbird, Outlook, Apple Mail, etc.
MTA = Mail Transfer Agent, e.g. Sendmail, Postfix, Exchange, etc.
> Secondly, I have disabled that in Thunderbird. I had
Firstly, what is MUA? I hear that but am not sure what that means.
Secondly, I have disabled that in Thunderbird. I had no idea it modified
anything; I thought it was simply a text signature that did not
interfere with Enigmail and GnuPG. Thanks for enabling me to understand
the complication there.
On 21/03/11 5:11 AM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
>
> The attached .asc file causes problems? I have disabled that but
> still enabled the header. Why would the .asc attachment option be
> there if it causes problems?
The .asc file is the GPG signature and does not cause problems. The
signature that is re
The attached .asc file causes problems? I have disabled that but still
enabled the header. Why would the .asc attachment option be there if it
causes problems?
On 20/03/2011 01:28 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2011, Charly Avital wrote:
>> Ingo Klöcker wrote the following on 3/20/11
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Charly Avital wrote:
> Ingo Klöcker wrote the following on 3/20/11 11:43 AM:
> > I doubt this very much because the encoding surely happens before
> > the signing.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ingo
>
> In my post, I also indicated that there was a string --=20 between
> the
Ingo Klöcker wrote the following on 3/20/11 11:43 AM:
>
> I doubt this very much because the encoding surely happens before the
> signing.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ingo
In my post, I also indicated that there was a string --=20 between the
actual text and the signature disclaimer ""CONFIDENTIALITY NOT
I removed the text signature in the account options just to be sure.
Hopefully this avoids complications. Is it because I use MIME?
On 20/03/2011 11:43 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2011, Charly Avital wrote:
>> Jonathan Ely wrote the following on 3/20/11 8:57 AM:
>>> It seems no ma
On Sunday 20 March 2011, Charly Avital wrote:
> Jonathan Ely wrote the following on 3/20/11 8:57 AM:
> > It seems no matter which key server I try I encounter the alert
> > saying nothing can be found. This is very annoying. Does anybody
> > know what the problem is and how I can fix it? I can not
Jonathan Ely wrote the following on 3/20/11 8:57 AM:
> It seems no matter which key server I try I encounter the alert saying
> nothing can be found. This is very annoying. Does anybody know what the
> problem is and how I can fix it? I can not seem to find a list of key
> servers online. All I wan
On 03/19/2011 02:07 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Friday 18 March 2011 at 5:48:47 PM, in
> , Grant Olson wrote:
>
>
>> Until then, I'll just use my favorite member of the sks
>> pool: gingerbear.net.
>
> Is it your favourite because of the name?
>
>
It's just the only name I actually rememb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 18 March 2011 at 5:48:47 PM, in
, Grant Olson wrote:
> Until then, I'll just use my favorite member of the sks
> pool: gingerbear.net.
Is it your favourite because of the name?
- --
Best regards
MFPAmailto:exp
On 3/17/11 10:57 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
>
> yeah, and keys.kfwebs.net, Kristian's keyserver which hosts the pool code, is
> also down. Still no word from him on sks-devel. Of course, he might not be
> able
> to get the mail if the server is offline.
>
> -John
>
Some news is starting to pop up
Grant Olson wrote:
> On 3/17/11 4:43 PM, Andrew Long wrote:
>> Anyone else having problems accessing pool.sks-keyservers.net? I've
>> tried pointing nslookup at a couple of the root DNS name servers and get
>> DOMAIN (not known)
>>
>
> There were a few emails on sks-devel this morning. Apparentl
* Andrew Long [110317 21:47, mID
<7871bbee-1f8d-4efc-b0f3-9a17ec4ce...@mac.com>]:
> Anyone else having problems accessing pool.sks-keyservers.net? I've
> tried pointing nslookup at a couple of the root DNS name servers and
> get DOMAIN (not known)
By now, I at least get NS records again, but
Andrew Long wrote the following on 3/17/11 4:43 PM:
> Anyone else having problems accessing pool.sks-keyservers.net? I've
> tried pointing nslookup at a couple of the root DNS name servers and
> get DOMAIN (not known)
>
> Regards, Andy
Was down two hours ago, still down now 5:30 PM DST.
Char
On 3/17/11 4:43 PM, Andrew Long wrote:
> Anyone else having problems accessing pool.sks-keyservers.net? I've
> tried pointing nslookup at a couple of the root DNS name servers and get
> DOMAIN (not known)
>
There were a few emails on sks-devel this morning. Apparently it is
indeed down.
http://
On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
> keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
The easy answer is that is doesn't matter. With few exceptions, you can think
of the keys
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Allen Schultz escribió:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
> keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
>
> Thanks in advance.
The most recommended one is pool.sks-keyser
On 3/20/2010 6:50 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to
> grab keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't
> have keys for.
"Best" is inherently subjective. However, many people here use
pool.sks-keyservers.net and are ha
Alexander Ulrich wrote:
> Hashimoto writes:
>>The key posted in one keyserver will be synchronized with all of the
>>other
>
> Yes.
Normally within a hour or two. The SKS keyservers use a very fast and
efficient protocol to exchange updates. Updates are emailed to other
keyservers runni
Hashimoto writes:
>The key posted in one keyserver will be synchronized with all of the
>other
Yes.
> ? And how to find a keyserver to store my publickey ?
See for example http://www.sks-keyservers.net for a list of
synchronizing keyservers or use the pool
x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.n
On Saturday 18 April 2009, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Faramir wrote:
> >> And my last question is how to find for a specific key ?
> >
> > I am not sure, the GUIs I use do that for me.
>
> gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks.keyservers.net --recv-key [keyID]
Or, if you do not know the key ID:
gpg -
Faramir wrote:
>> And my last question is how to find for a specific key ?
>
> I am not sure, the GUIs I use do that for me.
gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks.keyservers.net --recv-key [keyID]
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http:/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hashimoto escribió:
> Hi guys,
>
> The key posted in one keyserver will be synchronized with all of the
> other ? And how to find a keyserver to store my publickey ?
Most of the will synchronize with others, but there are a few that
doesn't do t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
gerry_lowry (alliston ontario canada) wrote:
> AFAIK you can publish your key to
> https://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/GetWelcomeScreen.event;
> it will be synchronized AFAIK; you will need to confirm every so often
> that your key is valid so PGP do not
gerry_lowry (alliston ontario canada) wrote:
> AFAIK you can publish your key to https://keyserver.pgp.com...
> it will be synchronized AFAIK
PGP's server doesn't sync.
> I've been advised to avoid MIT's keyserver because apparently
> it's not well maintained.
And broken. It doesn't play nice w
AFAIK you can publish your key to
https://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/GetWelcomeScreen.event;
it will be synchronized AFAIK; you will need to confirm every so often
that your key is valid so PGP do not drop it.
You can publish to other keyservers and your public key
will not find its way to the PGP Gl
Vlad "SATtva" Miller wrote the following on 1/19/08 8:38 AM:
[...]
So here's an explicit distinction between what we got from a keyserver
and from the gpg output.
As far as I am concerned, that's what I got from the keyserver I used,
yes.
I believe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted that:
"I'm no
Charly Avital wrote on 19.01.2008 18:26:
> Vlad "SATtva" Miller wrote the following on 1/19/08 6:01 AM:
> [...]
> | Here for example (in the bottom) you may see two subkeys with binding
> | signatures expired at 2007-12-31:
> |
> http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x8443620A&op=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Vlad "SATtva" Miller wrote the following on 1/19/08 6:01 AM:
[...]
| Here for example (in the bottom) you may see two subkeys with binding
| signatures expired at 2007-12-31:
|
http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x8443620A&op=vin
Simon Josefsson wrote on 19.01.2008 17:15:
> "Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>> If I understand this correctly and not missing something terribly here,
>> keyservers just looked at newly uploaded key, thought "huh? I already
>> have that subkey in place, and this 0x18 si
"Vlad \"SATtva\" Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While I understand that this place isn't the best for PKS bug reports,
> I'm still not sure of what's happening (except it's quite weird). My key
> 0x8443620A consists of a main certification key and two subkeys: one for
> encryption and one f
Erwan David wrote:
> A key is nothing without a way to add a trusted relation between this
> key and the entity you want to authenticate. So I do not think those
> "solutions" are worthwile. Either you accept mail only from people you
> know, or you accept mail only from people who paid some establ
Sean C. wrote:
[snip]
> This would not be the end-all be-all of anti-spam tools. It would just be a
> method to authenticate mail as really originating from a particular domain.
> You
> would still use other tools (eg SpamAssassin, Norton, etc.) to figure out if
> the
> sender is a known spammer/
>Neil Williams writes:
>How do you guarantee that From: cannot be spoofed - it sounds like you are
>delegating that to the individual ISP / domain holder. I'm concerned that
the
>domain is too blunt as an instrument against spam and that it will remain
>easy to send spam from: aol.com and hotmail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Radu Hociung wrote:
[snip]
> That's why I am asking the question: could PGP cope if all, or a
> significant proportion of all domains were to enable some kind of email
> transport authentication?
I don't see any connection. PGP i
> - Message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
> Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:15:35 +0100
> From: Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Keyservers and the future
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.
On Thursday 19 May 2005 8:15 pm, Radu Hociung wrote:
> Depending on proposal, email authentication would require between 1
> key/domain owner
Is that a completely different key to another domain used by the same owner?
I've got many domains but I only want one main key.
If someone trusts codehel
Bill Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:29:30 -0400
> Radu Hociung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>The object of trust, however, is a key. Without a key there isn't much
>>to be trusted. The question is ... is the PGP architecture suited to a
>>load of hundreds of millions of keys, or even
On Thu, 19 May 2005 18:29:30 -0400
Radu Hociung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The object of trust, however, is a key. Without a key there isn't much
> to be trusted. The question is ... is the PGP architecture suited to a
> load of hundreds of millions of keys, or even billions?
>
> Are CA's and X
Erwan David wrote:
> A key is nothing without a way to add a trusted relation between this
> key and the entity you want to authenticate. So I do not think those
> "solutions" are worthwile. Either you accept mail only from people
> you know, or you accept mail only from people who paid some
> es
Le 19/05/05 21:15, Radu Hociung a écrit:
Hello all,
I'm researching email authentication, and it looks like there is some
promise in using cryptographic signatures. Currently there are hundreds
of millions of domain names, and tens of millions of domain name owners.
Depending on proposal, email aut
56 matches
Mail list logo
