-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 18 June 2010 at 8:13:52 AM, in
, Hauke Laging
wrote:
> but this is about the share of file URLs in the keyring
> not the number of file URLs against the number of
> alternative key servers.
My guess would be maybe 1-2% of my keyring.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 18 June 2010 at 8:42:39 PM, in
, David Shaw
wrote:
> The danger here is that it might take a long time
> (minutes+) to realize that the keyserver and/or network
> wasn't going to cooperate. This could seriously slow
> down many GPG op
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 18 June 2010 at 8:42:31 PM, in
, David Shaw
wrote:
> When I wrote the new keyserver stuff, I thought about
> this sort of thing, but the lack of a good way to store
> metadata was a problem (the keybox fixes this), as well
> as the co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Saturday 19 June 2010 at 12:36:15 PM, in
, I wrote:
> Hi
> On Friday 18 June 2010 at 8:13:52 AM, in
> ,
> Hauke Laging wrote:
>> but this is about the share of file URLs in the
>> keyring not the number of file URLs against the number
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
His Steveness wrote on 18.06.10 20:40:
> for a Test i installed GPG on MacOsX 5.8,
> so far so good, works fine, thank you Guys btw. for that nice Work.
> But now i hang there and im not able to uninstall the hole thing.
>
> Can someone tell m
Am Samstag 19 Juni 2010 13:36:15 schrieb MFPA:
> > Sending to several keyservers does not help if the MitM
> > attack point is on your side.
>
> Even if you send the key over an encrypted connection to a server? For
> example https://pgp.webtru.st/
No. Thus I wrote: "If your keyservers don't sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 20 June 2010 at 1:14:59 AM, in
, Hauke Laging
wrote:
> So in order to be safe you need additional CPU load
> either for TLS or for signing. Signing is superior IMHO
> because it allows reuse of the data (one crypto action
> (covering
