On 13/03/11 6:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
>
> Whatever you do with user IDs is optional, since they are just a
> free-text field. And of course a user wanting to make their key
> match more searches could include extra UIDs with additional
> hashes. For example John Smith could
> include hashes of example
On 13/03/11 5:32 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
> Ben McGinnes wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I think I might have to play around with installing a local
>> server. I don't have a big enough link to run a public server, but
>> running a local one would probably serve as an interesting exercise.
>
> I think that's
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:21:43 +1100
Ben McGinnes articulated:
> Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
> world.
Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated method. One
that forces me to
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
> Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
> e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated method.
[citation required]
--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Saturday 12 March 2011 at 11:06:14 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> If nobody's looking for people's email addresses, then
> there's no need to not publish email addresses.
That assumes that there is no need to obscure a piece of informa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:48:55 AM, in
, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> I think you're assuming a level of innate understanding
> of what can be done with every part of a UID by every
> user when they create a key. This is most definitely
> not the
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
Aaron Toponce wrote:
Hello Aaron,
> On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
> > Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
> > e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated method.
> [citation required]
See the way Outlook E
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 7:58:36 AM, in
, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> So, my question, how would you enable a user to display
> those keys with known names or identities without
> searching for a specific key belonging to a particular
> person?
M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 12:56:53 PM, in
, Brad Rogers
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600 Aaron Toponce
> wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>> On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote: > Actually, it is
>> a fine example of users/MUAs not correct
On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
> Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> Hello Aaron,
>
>> On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
>>> Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
>>> e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated
On 3/13/2011 8:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> If nobody's looking for people's email addresses, then
>> there's no need to not publish email addresses.
>
> That assumes that there is no need to obscure a piece of information
> unless it is known that somebody is actively looking for the
> information. In m
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:19:58 -0600
Aaron Toponce articulated:
> On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
> > Aaron Toponce wrote:
> >
> > Hello Aaron,
> >
> >> On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
> >>> Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not c
On 03/13/2011 08:57 AM, Jerry wrote:
> Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved e‑mail
> program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and protection
> against phishing messages.
>
> Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
> available for q
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:21:36 -0600
Aaron Toponce wrote:
Hello Aaron,
> I'm just trying to figure out why people keep saying inline signatures
> are deprecated, when no documented evidence has come forth showing the
Ah, I did indeed misunderstand what was intended.
I first read that inline sigs
On 13/03/11 10:42 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:21:43 +1100
> Ben McGinnes articulated:
>
>> Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
>> world.
>
> Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly
> formatting e-mail messages thereby forcing the u
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:57:16 -0400
Jerry wrote:
Hello Jerry,
> Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
That's my fault. A misunderstanding of what was being asked for.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever imme
On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved e‑mail
program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and protection
against phishing messages.
Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
available for quite some tim
On 14/03/11 12:32 AM, MFPA wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:48:55 AM, in
> , Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
> I'm assuming a short descriptive paragraph in the gpg.man file plus
> some good info becoming available over time in various "start up
> guides" etc. by searching the web or mailing list archi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 3:54:28 PM, in
, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> Also, let's not continue the "in-line is deprecated"
> argument, just because PGP/MIME may be better
> (personally I agree that it is better).
On the other hand, I think inline
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 2:47:23 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 8:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> of information unless it is known that somebody is
>> actively looking for the information. In my world...
> So at this point you're sa
On 14/03/11 1:12 AM, MFPA wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 7:58:36 AM, in
> , Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
>> So, my question, how would you enable a user to display those keys
>> with known names or identities without searching for a specific key
>> belonging to a particular person?
>
> My understan
On Sunday 13 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> On 13/03/11 7:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
> > Or simply use pgp-inline so that the disclaimer comes after the
> > signature.
>
> Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
> world.
I disagree. This very mailing list demonstrates how t
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:37:17 -0700
Doug Barton articulated:
> On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
> > Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved
> > e‑mail program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and
> > protection against phishing messages.
> >
> > Why are we ev
On 14/03/11 5:19 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>> On 13/03/11 7:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> Or simply use pgp-inline so that the disclaimer comes after the
>>> signature.
>>
>> Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
>> world.
>
> I d
On 03/13/2011 10:57 AM, Jerry wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:19:58 -0600
> Aaron Toponce articulated:
>
>> On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
>>> Aaron Toponce wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Aaron,
>>>
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
> Actually
On 3/13/2011 1:02 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:37:17 -0700 Doug Barton
articulated:
On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved
e‑mail program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering
and protection against phishing message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:02:52 PM, in
, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> Ah, I'm still using the 1.4.x branch, so I haven't seen
> any of that.
Nor have I; it is just my understanding from descriptions and answers
to questions that I have read.
>
On 14/03/11 11:44 AM, MFPA wrote:
> On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:02:52 PM, in
> , Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
>> I'd hardly call it "flashing lights" just to be listed on the
>> keyserver, especially when the same data source also contains a
>> large amount of effectively useless data in which any key o
On 3/13/2011 4:02 PM, Jerry wrote:
> So I am naive, then what are you? You CC'd me even though I
> specifically stated that off-list replies are basically ignored. In
> following with my basic procedure for unwanted e-mails like that, I
> reported it as SPAM.
Well, it's not exactly "unsolicited
I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA? I know the latter has
undergone a ridiculous amount of scrutiny and is immensely popular. I
also know it generates
On 3/13/2011 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
> people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
> algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA?
There are probably only a couple of dozen mathematicians in th
On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
> I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
> people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
> algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA? I know the latter has
> undergone a ridiculous amount of
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 09:06:20AM +1100, Ben McGinnes wrote:
Although I've received other email from the OP that did not include
the footer, so now I'm curious to know where it came from, especially
since he is using the GMail MX servers.
Hi Ben,
I exchanged a few emails off list with the O
33 matches
Mail list logo
