On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 11:38:49PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 08:50:11PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> > >Some people (myself included) check both before signing. The name via
> > >some sort of formal ID, and the email via a mail challenge.
> >
> > As do
Am 11 Sep 2005 um 23:01 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:59:53AM -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
> > 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
Joost van Baal wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 11:38:49PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
It's not an issue of improving the trust, it's an issue of
disambiguation. In my case, there are many different David Shaws out
there, including a furniture designer in New Zealand, a Pulitzer prize
winning journ
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:37:06 +0200, Peter Engel said:
> I have a class-2 cardreader (meaning: with integreated keypad for
> entering the PIN). I found no clue yet wether GnuPG supports the
> integrated keypad for entering the PIN. (using GnuPG v.1.4.2)
I am working on this. It has turned out to
David Shaw wrote:
>>>Some people
>>>will not sign such a user ID though,
>
> It's not an issue of improving the trust, it's an issue of
> disambiguation.
Right, so why is it any better to have a key with:
0x99242560 David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
than to have
0x99242560 David Shaw
0x99242560
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I have the gpgol-0.9.3 plug-in installed in Outlook 2003 running on
Windows XP Pro.
It resolved the 'crash on signing' issues I was having with the older
plug-in, thanks!
Now I have a couple of questions:
Is there a way to set the default key t
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 6:26 pm, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Right, so why is it any better to have a key with:
> 0x99242560 David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> than to have
> 0x99242560 David Shaw
> 0x99242560 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (two UIDs)
>
> You still have the same level of disambiguation.
No, bec
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:01:15PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> I wouldn't sign the email only one because an email address can be accessible
> to more than one person. If I'm encrypting to this key, I want to know to
> WHOM I am writing.
>
In some cases you can't to WHOM you are writing. Wh
Sorry, I earlier posted this with an old thread in the subject.
PGP 9 stores the file name in the encrypted data. You can take a file
xyz.pgp, decrypt it, and return it to the original "My Word Doc.DOC". There
is nothing externally visible, either in a PGP Partitioned message, nor in a
hex dump
I hope this isn't something already discussed that I overlooked in the
list..
PGP 9 stores the file name in the encrypted data. You can take a file
xyz.pgp, decrypt it, and return it to the original "My Word Doc.DOC". There
is nothing externally visible, either in a PGP Partitioned message, nor
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:50:30PM -0500, Wes wrote:
> I hope this isn't something already discussed that I overlooked in the
> list..
>
> PGP 9 stores the file name in the encrypted data. You can take a file
> xyz.pgp, decrypt it, and return it to the original "My Word Doc.DOC". There
> is noth
Instead of --decrypt, use
gpg --use-embedded-filename myfile.pgp
--- Wes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I earlier posted this with an old thread in
> the subject.
>
> PGP 9 stores the file name in the encrypted data.
> You can take a file
> xyz.pgp, decrypt it, and return it to the orig
Hi everybody.
(First of all sorry for crossposting to *devel and *users,.. I supposed
users list would be the appropriate,.. but Werner supposed *devel,.. so
I took both)
I have lots of general and specific questions about OpenPGP/GnuPG.
First of all I'd like to say that I've already read mos
Neil Williams wrote:
No, because you've separated the two - there has to be a reason to do this and
therefore you are implying that there is a difference between the two UID's.
There is. It is nearly impossible to verify with complete certainty
that the person you meet is in fact able to acc
Faine, Mark writes:
I've configured system account mail (root, postmaster, etc) to be sent
to a user account and then that user account is using a .forward file to
send the mail to my workstation where I can review it. I would like to
do the same but include an encrypt/sign step into the proce
15 matches
Mail list logo
