Hello,
I am new to GnuPG. If I run any command from gpg, I am getting the following
message:
gpg: conversion from `utf-8' to `roman8' not available
I am using HP Unix 11.0. Is there any way to avoid the above message?
Secondly, I am giving -o option in the command line and if the file alread
On 27 Oct 2005 Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> I first posted this under an old (but fitting) thread and got
> no response. Sorry, if you already read it.
>
> Nowadays there are quite some keys, which have several hundred
> signatures on their UIDs. This is a good thing for the WoT,
> but it clutters the
Alphax wrote:
Is it in OpenPGP yet?
I think there are IDs reserved for it,... but not sure if the whole
algorithm/system is contained in RFC2440...
Regards,
Topas.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/
Hi Zuky,
I'm sorry this has nothing to do with your website.
Its just that my Name is Zuky and i am on a quest to find out what it means and
where it originates from, when i saw you web link on the net i thought you
could help me.
If you have any information that may help in my quest, i would be
On 27 Oct 2005, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Rather than quoting what you have, I will just go through what
your points and make comments. If I don't comment, I leave it
to OTHERS to make the comments or you to hash it out alone. For
the others, reply to his questions, not my comments (unle
On Saturday 29 October 2005 9:25 am, Henry Hertz Hobbit wrote:
> I hope I am misunderstanding this. I think I am.
I think you've missed the distinction between this happening on a local
keyring and the effect on a keyserver. If keyserver behaviour remains as now,
changes like this to your local
David Shaw wrote:
If so,... should I (for security/cryptography reasons) ask users to sign
my key only with SHA512 (or whatever is considered as the currently
strongest hash)? And/or should I sign others UIDs only with SHA512 (..) ?
This is up to you, but note that most OpenPGP programs d
David Shaw wrote:
First, read this:
http://download.cryptoex.com/documents/whitepaper/cex2003-pgp-in-unternehmen-en/Tech%20White%20Paper%202002%20-%20Using%20OpenPGP%20in%20Corporations.pdf
Then, read this:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2005-May/025612.html
Thanks :-)
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 03:52:19PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Example:
>
> me->(tsign_1)->root_CA
> root_ca->(sign)->president
> root_ca->(tsign-x)->sub_CA
>
> =>root_ca and president is valid to me
> =>sub_CA is vaild too but nothing that sub_CA signs/tsigns is vaild for me
>
> Ex
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:39:14PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> >>If so,... should I (for security/cryptography reasons) ask users to sign
> >>my key only with SHA512 (or whatever is considered as the currently
> >>strongest hash)? And/or should I sign others UI
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:36:13 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer said:
>
> > This is perhaps a stupid question but how far are these two standards
> > interoperable?
>
> They are not interoperable.
Depends on what you rate to be "interoperable" (see below)
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 10:50:56AM +, bingumalla satyanarayana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to GnuPG. If I run any command from gpg, I am getting the
> following message:
>
> gpg: conversion from `utf-8' to `roman8' not available
>
> I am using HP Unix 11.0. Is there any way to avoid the ab
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:42:48 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer said:
> What do you mean by "private extension"?
OpenPGP defines identifier ranges for private and experimental use.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:56:25 +0100 (CET), Henning Hucke said:
> X.509 as well as OpenPGP are just package aroung the product. You can
> use the private and public keys themselfs to package them as OpenPGP or
> X.509. So this way you can have one and the same key pair to work in
> both worlds.
S
14 matches
Mail list logo
