Le Fri 9/09/2005, Roscoe disait
> I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get in
> - and not new vewsions.
> (I maybe wrong on that.)
> (Naturally that only applies to stable..)
But unsable still has 1.4.1
--
Erwan
___
Gnupg-us
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:32:21AM +0930, Roscoe wrote:
> I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get in
> - and not new vewsions.
> (I maybe wrong on that.)
> (Naturally that only applies to stable..)
>
> Building and installing your own gnupg.deb from gnupg.org sources ha
David Shaw wrote:
>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
Considering the behaviour of the GD, I'd say it's also a practical issue
about
Johan Wevers wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
>
>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>>others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
>
>
> Considering the behaviour of the GD, I'd s
Hi,
I'm still playing with my card ;-)
Just in case my fellowship card breaks up, I wanted to test the
bkuptocard process. So I stick another openpgp card in the reader and
--edit my key, run bkuptocard /path/to/sk_*.gpg
Apparently it successfully imports it, but however I still see the old
card
Alphax wrote:
>Carrying out a full cleaning of keys stored on keyservers would
>seriously damage the WoT.
Too bad. However, if you just strip the GD signature off the damage won't
be too large.
>Removing duplicated signatures however would probably have little impact,
>assuming you are removing
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:48:07 +0200, Andreas Liebschner said:
> Apparently it successfully imports it, but however I still see the old
> card' s/n under "General key info..:". In fact, I can't sign anything
> because I'm asked for the other card. (I obviousy save before quitting gpg)
Well, this mi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Version 1.2.1 of GPGee has now been released and is available at
http://gpgee.excelcia.org.
This is mainly a bugfix release to correct a couple of functional bugs
that appeared shortly after 1.2.0 was released. Bugs fixes include:
- - Performin
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> > If I ran a keyserver, would it be appropriate for me to drop all
> > signatures from your key D39DA0E3 simply because they're available
> > somewhere else?
>
> keyserver.pgp.com doesn't synchronize with other keyservers, by design,
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> >I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
> >others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
>
> Con
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 07:38:31PM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> Johan Wevers wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
> >>others by stripping signatures is a ve
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:11:30PM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>
> >Carrying out a full cleaning of keys stored on keyservers would
> >seriously damage the WoT.
>
> Too bad. However, if you just strip the GD signature off the damage won't
> be too large.
Then it needs to be done a
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:31:35AM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
[I'll address your other points later.]
> If you insist on presenting a different view to users than the entire
> rest of the keyserver net, without any way to turn such a
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:30:35AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:31:35AM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:22:00AM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
>
> [I'll address your other points later.]
>
> > If you insist on presenting a different view to users th
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> > 2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
> > 'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
> > gefunden' (my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key
> > 0022FA10 found) As you can see i
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. "clean"
> can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
> want cleaned (so it can know which signatures to remove). In your
> case, you need to fetch key CA57
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Interestingly there is a difference, whether I use '--import' to get
> a key from a 'key.asc' or '--recv-key' to import it from a keyserver.
> It reproducibly asks for two different, not existing keys. On WinXP
> it is always 0022F
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
>
> > Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. "clean"
> > can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
> > want cleaned (so it can know
Johan Wevers wrote:
> Alphax wrote:
>>Removing duplicated signatures however would probably have little impact,
>>assuming you are removing only the newest ones
>
> Don't you mean keeping the newst ones?
>
Er, yes. However as David Shaw pointed out further down the thread,
there's no safe way to
David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
>
>>David Shaw wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
>>>keys: that would put the user in control. Forcing your decision on
>>>others by stripping signatures is a very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Shaw wrote:
> There is perhaps an argument to be made for a "super clean" that does
> clean and also removes any signature where the signing key is not
> present (in fact, an early version of clean did that), but that's a
> different thing than c
Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
Are they a good/bad signer?
Does something need to be done about them?
Should they be approached by the community?
PGP's position (and the argument I've heard fr
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 12:28:22AM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:02:56AM +0200, Johan Wevers wrote:
> >
> >>David Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> >>>keys: that would put the user in contro
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
> is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>
> Are they a good/bad signer?
> Does something need to be done about them?
> Should they be ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reference:
Subject: Re: legal status of GnuPG in China?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> just remember, next time you buy some piec
David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 02:00:38PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
>
>>Ok, that other thread isn't about the GD, but this one is. I think this
>>is something that should be discussed and a consensus reached.
>>
>>Are they a good/bad signer?
>>Does something need to be done about th
Hi all,
I've tried over the past week to send encrypted e-mails to a friend with a
Hushmail address from Kmail on SuSE 9.3 . I've got his key on my keyring and
when I hit the 'send' button, it brings up the gpg window showing the key I'm
using and all that and I enter my passphrase and it
27 matches
Mail list logo
