-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2010 01:31, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 5:26 PM, Sean Rima wrote:
>> Folks
>>
>> I downloaded and installed gpg4win-2.0.2rc1. I then tested my pka setup
>> using:
>>
>> echo "foo" | gpg2 --no-default-keyring --keyring c:\temp\gpg --encr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2010 03:38, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>
> So, if you're interested in comparing apples to apples, for curiosity I
> just uploaded your pubkey (sean.pubkey.txt) to the same url as
> danm.pubkey.txt).
>
> See if that fixes it, at leas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2010 04:23, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> March 3rd in gnupg-users@gnupg.org, thread "Continued PKA problems on
> Windows"
>
> Sean: get a real operating system as GNU/Linux, see a list of free as
> in freedom distribucions in
> http://www
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2010 01:31, Grant Olson wrote:
> Also, the url listed in the firefox "Save as" window is some crazy
> computer generated url, not www.srima.eu.
>
> Just doing a quick test with curl, it takes like 4 302 redirects before
> you actually get t
Hi,
I have installed the CLI version of GPG.
I understand that GPG options have to be set in a configuration file.
The configuration file can be created if it doesn't exist as per a
previous thread here
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2008-December/035146.html
I added the
On 03/04/2010 08:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
> And here's the output of the last command:
>
> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
> gpg: next trustdb check due at 2011-03-03
>
> It
On 3/4/2010 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
>
> And then:
>
>gpg --check-trustdb
>
> And here's the output of the last command:
>
> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
> gp
On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> I'm also not sure what the "signed: 128" suggests in the "depth: 1"
> line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
> issued more than 128 certifications themselves. maybe someone else can
> explain that bit?
>
I believe
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:44:25PM +, MFPA wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 March 2010 at 4:16:21 PM, you wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:53:27PM +, MFPA wrote:
> >> There are privacy issues, especially if user-ids on the key contain
> >> email addresses. In some cases, the authorities knowing
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have installed the CLI version of GPG.
>
> I understand that GPG options have to be set in a configuration file.
> The configuration file can be created if it doesn't exist as per a
> previous thread here
>
> http://lists.gnupg.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 01:12 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
>>> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
>>> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1
On 03/04/2010 01:12 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
>> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
>> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
>> gpg: next trustdb check due at 2011-03-03
>
> I
On 3/4/2010 11:15 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 08:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
>> And here's the output of the last command:
>>
>> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
>> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
>>
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
. . .
system. For that matter, I'm writing this from a true-blue,
certified UNIX: OS X. I think it's quite real, despite the
fact major parts of the desktop are closed-source.
And despite, sadly, that the EULA for OS10.4+ (like WinXP+,
IIUC) requir
On 03/04/2010 01:01 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> I'm also not sure what the "signed: 128" suggests in the "depth: 1"
>> line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
>> issued more than 128 certifications themselves. maybe someo
On 3/4/2010 3:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 01:01 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>> On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> I'm also not sure what the "signed: 128" suggests in the "depth: 1"
>>> line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
>>> issued
Hi,
Some time ago, I decided to revoke my old ElGamal encryption key and
replace it with a new RSA one, that I keep stored on a smartcard. (The
goal is to be ale to decrypt some messages/files with my laptop, but not
have my keys compromised if it gets lost/stolen.)
The trouble is that I have
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago, I decided to revoke my old ElGamal encryption key and
> replace it with a new RSA one, that I keep stored on a smartcard. (The
> goal is to be ale to decrypt some messages/files with my laptop, but not
> have my keys c
On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 01:01 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>> On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> I'm also not sure what the "signed: 128" suggests in the "depth: 1"
>>> line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
>>
Folks
This may related to my earlier question about signing the imported PGP public
keys.
When I run gpg --list-sig, the imported public keys show that they are signed.
However, when I run a test to encrypt a file with a key, I get the following
message:
[...@hrapp1 /tmp]$ gpg -e -r 0xEC3A
Folks
I'm at the next step. The PGP public keys imported without a problem.
However, they are not signed any more. Would it be better if I created a new
signing key to use?
Thanks for your help.
Cathy
---
Cathy L. Smith
IT Engineer
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Phone: 509.375.26
Correction to this email. The gpg --list-sig shows that the keys are signed.
Do I need to create a new signature key, and re-sign all the public keys that I
imported?
Cathy
---
Cathy L. Smith
IT Engineer
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Phone: 509.375.2687
Fax: 509.375.2330
Ema
Hello Smith, !
"Smith, Cathy" wrote:
> I've tried using the --yes option without success to suppress this
> interactive prompt doesn't pop up. This encryption does need to run in a
> batch job. What do I need to do in order all interactive prompts are
> surpressed, and that the assumption is
23 matches
Mail list logo
