Am Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 08:43 schrieb Atom Smasher:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, David Shaw wrote:
> > Note that there is a difference between what page at
> > http://www.hantslug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?LinuxHints/KeySigning
> > says and what you say above. The page (correctly) notes that all
> > tha
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 02:29:23AM -0400, Atom Smasher wrote:
> no matter what anyone tells you is or isn't adequate, you have to decide
> for yourself. this may help you figure it out -
> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/121645/49/
Thanks Atom, that article was linked to from the threa
Tony Whitmore wrote:
> Yet it's already been suggested in this thread that this represents
> insufficient verification.
Simple answers like "sufficient" or "insufficient" are tempting, but
they utterly lack context. When it comes to these questions, you need
to carefully assess your needs and th
Hi all,
Tony Whitmore wrote:
> As I mentioned yesterday, I understand that it's my decision whether to trust
> any particular piece of identification. I thought it would be worth finding
> out whether there are any actual arguments for or against accepting such ID
> which would help inform my
Hi!
We are pleased to announce the availibility of Gpg4win, version 1.0.4.
* This version fixes a problem with several utilities like GPGee and
parts of WinPT introduced with the last version.
* Please make sure to subscribe to the new gpg4win announcement
mailing list. We might stop in the
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Tony Whitmore wrote:
Thanks Atom, that article was linked to from the thread suggested
yesterday. It covers some interesting etiquette points, and certainly
doesn't mention using a encrypted block of random data to further verify
identity:
"If required, they may take thi
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:43, Bob Henson said:
> I read some days ago on the GPGee forum that a new Windows binary would
> be released to correct the change in GPG 1.4.4 that broke GPGee. Is it
> around/about to appear? I have some files encrypted using GPGee and
No. However, I released gpg4win 1.0
Werner Koch wrote
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:43, Bob Henson said:
>
>> I read some days ago on the GPGee forum that a new Windows binary would
>> be released to correct the change in GPG 1.4.4 that broke GPGee. Is it
>> around/about to appear? I have some files encrypted using GPGee and
>
> No.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:50:22 +0100, Tony Whitmore wrote:
> The e-mails I received were identical apart from the sender's name, so I
> suspect they are using a script. I wasn't able to find anything
> definitive on Google so can't be sure which script t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I recall some time ago I had a question as to how I can use gpg-agent
in Windows for Thunderbird/Enigmail. Since there is no release of
gpg-agent for Windows (without building it yourself), I had to enter
in my passphrase every time TB started up (I
10 matches
Mail list logo
