sending encrypted messages doesn't work

I just downloaded a copy of gpg4win 2.1.0. I'm running win7 with outlook 2007 and have an exchange account. I can receive encrypted messages just fine and can send signed messages, but I can't send encrypted messages. I get a Undeliverable message with "Error is [0x80004005--]" in

Re: Displaying signature algorithms when doing --check-sigs, disabling algorithms for web of trust.

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, zirconium wrote: > Hi > > Is there a way to display hash algorithms along with public key > algoritms (and its lenght) of signatures when issuing "--check-sigs" > (or check in the "--edit-key" shell)? > > I also would like to know if there is a way to force that GPG

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 04:33:17 schrieb Grant Olson: > 1) I digitally sign a document saying I owe you money. The signing key > has an expiration date. > > 2) Key expires. I do nothing. > > 3) The original document is invalidated. I no longer owe you money? Whether you owe me money does no

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 04:33, Grant Olson wrote: > On 5/6/2011 10:05 PM, Hauke Laging wrote: > > > > Several people have mentioned that a signature does not become invalid by > > expiration of the key. That is formally correct an describes the GnuPG > > behaviour. But with regard to content in su

Re: sending encrypted messages doesn't work

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 09:24, ricka wrote: > > Is there a reasonable workaround (...)? > As a very temporary workaround, encrypt the plain-text and send the encrypted text block (you know, "-BEGIN ... - END"). Of course, that looses all formatting and doesn't work for attachments. -- J

Re: Displaying signature algorithms when doing --check-sigs, disabling algorithms for web of trust.

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:51, Tomasz Wozowicz wrote: > Anyone willing to help? Please answer. Thanks > I recall there was a long discussion on this including some hints on how it is possible and whether or not it makes sense. -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@jeromebaum.com --

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 01:43, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 12:11:06 AM, in > , Jerome Baum > wrote: > > > Say my sub-key expired yesterday. Today, you come > > up to me and ask me to sign something (say, a statement > > that I agree to specific contractual terms). Whoever is > > in pos

Re: sending encrypted messages doesn't work

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 1:14:06 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > As a very temporary workaround, encrypt the plain-text > and send the encrypted text block (you know, > "-BEGIN ... - END"). Of course, that looses all > formatting and do

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 1:09:25 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > Then I would say it is the recipients responsibility to > only accept "reasonable" signatures. Fair enough. "Reasonable" is subjective. > As you say, it is > only an "attempt"

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 15:54:21 schrieb MFPA: > > and since the cost is so > > low, that there is no point in not having them > > (assuming, of course, that you separate master and > > sub-keys). > > You can't assume. You can very well if you don't claim that for all cases but use this assump

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 15:54, MFPA wrote: > (snip huge email) > Next time can you read the whole email and reply to it as a whole? As for signature checking, I stand by my point: Over here, signing a document today and claiming on the signature that it was signed tomorrow is going to be an offe

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 15:54, MFPA > wrote: > > (snip huge email) > > > Next time can you read the whole email and reply to it as a whole? > > As for signature checking, I stand by my point: Over here, signing a > document today and claimi

[OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

Hey not that any of this relates to the original question on digital signatures, but interesting nonetheless so I guess let's keep it on the list as OT. On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 19:16, Jean-David Beyer wrote: > > When I was on a grand jury, the prosecutor said that while the words of > the law made

Re: [OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 6:42:06 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > Hey not that any of this relates to the original > question on digital signatures, but interesting > nonetheless so I guess let's keep it on the list as OT. Since (like any other

Re: [OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 21:36, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 6:42:06 PM, in > , Jerome Baum > wrote: > > In that case we had a different understanding. Checks > > aren't common over here and I never saw a post-dated > > check -- which I assumed is a check that is meant to be > > avail

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 4:03:19 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > Next time can you read the whole email and reply to it > as a whole? It's generally better to read the whole email and then reply to whichever points I have anything to say about

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 3:06:16 PM, in , Hauke Laging wrote: > Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 15:54:21 schrieb MFPA: >> You can't assume. > You can very well if you don't claim that for all cases but use this > assumption for distinguishung betwe

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On 5/7/2011 7:54 AM, Hauke Laging wrote: > Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 04:33:17 schrieb Grant Olson: > >> 1) I digitally sign a document saying I owe you money. The signing key >> has an expiration date. >> >> 2) Key expires. I do nothing. >> >> 3) The original document is invalidated. I no longer

Re: [OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 8:50:45 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > We weren't talking about fraud and deception. Only > about lying -- rather, telling an untruth, which you > may or may not be doing intentionally. But it is still > an untruth if

Re: [OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 22:38, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 8:50:45 PM, in > , Jerome Baum > wrote: > > > > We weren't talking about fraud and deception. Only > > about lying -- rather, telling an untruth, which you > > may or may not be doing intentionally. But it is still > > an untru

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 21:43, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 3:06:16 PM, in > , Hauke Laging > wrote: > > > > Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 15:54:21 schrieb MFPA: > >> You can't assume. > > > You can very well if you don't claim that for all cases but use this > > assumption for distinguishun

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Friday 06 May 2011, MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Friday 6 May 2011 at 8:48:03 PM, in > > , Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something the difference is as > > follows: - With prolongation of the expiration time > > releases signed before the prolongation will keep > > having a valid s

Re: [OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 22:47, Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 22:38, MFPA wrote: > >> As for the meaning of the date, whether it is supposed to mean the >> > date the signature was written or the date the instruction to pay >> becomes effective or simply the date the cheque is issued

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 9:52:51 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > I don't think you get what kind of assumption we are > talking about. There are two kinds: > 1. I assume something is generally true, e.g.: I assume > the world is around. > 2. I

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:07, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 9:52:51 PM, in > , Jerome Baum > wrote: > > > I don't think you get what kind of assumption we are > > talking about. There are two kinds: > > > 1. I assume something is generally true, e.g.: I assume > > the world is around. >

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Saturday 07 May 2011, MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Friday 6 May 2011 at 10:18:29 PM, in > , Jerome Baum > > wrote: > >>> If my key expired yesterday, no-one can > >>> forge a message with that key and claim it's from > >>> today. > >> > >> Never heard of a system clock that was wrong? > > > >

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 9:56:14 PM, in , Ingo Klöcker wrote: > It depends on your definition of "valid". In my book a > signature can only be valid if the corresponding key > is valid. Expired keys are not valid (anymore). I thought a key

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sunday 08 May 2011, Grant Olson wrote: === You seem to send messages from the future. ;-) > On 5/6/11 3:48 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > On Thursday 05 May 2011, Hauke Laging wrote: > >> What is the difference between these two options with respect to > >> the point of confusion?

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

2011/5/7 Ingo Klöcker > This explains why digital signatures with legally binding date often > (always?) require a timestamp by a certified third party. > Not always (every statement of intent is binding, even w/out a notary), but e.g. over here (Germany) for a digital signature to reach a certa

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

2011/5/7 MFPA > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 9:56:14 PM, in > , Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > > > It depends on your definition of "valid". In my book a > > signature can only be valid if the corresponding key > > is valid. Expired keys are not valid (anymore). > > I thought a key was incapable of makin

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 10:21:17 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > On digital signatures being legally binding, apparently > a scanned bitmap of your signature is enough to be > "binding" (as would be no signature), just that it > isn't very str

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On 05/07/2011 02:49 PM, MFPA wrote: > What is to stop that scanned bitmap of a person's signature being > applied to a document the individual has no knowledge about? Nothing. That's the nature of physical signatures. A physical signature binds tightly to the individual (handwriting being hard t

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 10:22:33 PM, in , Jerome Baum wrote: > Definitely. I get his point about rejecting them > entirely though, as it is (and that's what this > dicussion is all about) difficult to verify the > (actual) signature time. Ma

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On 5/7/2011 5:08 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Sunday 08 May 2011, Grant Olson wrote: >=== > > You seem to send messages from the future. ;-) > That's funny. I wanted to make sure I wasn't lying before replying. A little later I was deploying code to some servers. After the upd

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 03:13, Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > >> On 05/07/2011 02:49 PM, MFPA wrote: >> > What is to stop that scanned bitmap of a person's signature being >> > applied to a document the individual has no knowledge about? >> >> Nothing.

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 23:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 05/07/2011 02:49 PM, MFPA wrote: > > What is to stop that scanned bitmap of a person's signature being > > applied to a document the individual has no knowledge about? > > Nothing. That's the nature of physical signatures. I was talkin

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On May 7, 2011, at 5:49 PM, MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 10:21:17 PM, in > , Jerome Baum > wrote: > > >> On digital signatures being legally binding, apparently >> a scanned bitmap of your signature is enough to be >> "binding" (as would be no signature), just that it >> isn't very st

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 03:50, David Shaw wrote: > > Incidentally, speaking of bitmap signatures - a "signature" made via a > rubber stamp of a signature can be binding under certain circumstances as > well (at least in the US - I don't know about elsewhere). > Often enough you don't need an actua

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On 05/07/2011 09:50 PM, David Shaw wrote: > Incidentally, speaking of bitmap signatures - a "signature" made via > a rubber stamp of a signature can be binding under certain > circumstances as well (at least in the US - I don't know about > elsewhere). Within the U.S., the standard doesn't invo

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

Am Samstag, 7. Mai 2011, 21:43:38 schrieb MFPA: > At what point does it become safe to assume that an individual with > expiry dates on their subkeys keeps their master key securely offline? There is probability but no safety in this assumption. But it this relevant? How and whom is an expiratio

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On May 7, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 05/07/2011 09:50 PM, David Shaw wrote: >> Incidentally, speaking of bitmap signatures - a "signature" made via >> a rubber stamp of a signature can be binding under certain >> circumstances as well (at least in the US - I don't know about

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 00:07, MFPA wrote: > Maybe we could use something like > http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper.htm I checked the newsgroup (only through Google, last posting from '05) and don't see the signatures being posted anymore. Can anyone confirm this? -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 04:53, David Shaw wrote: > I knew a man (a lawyer, as it happened) who always signed documents with > several loops in a row. When I asked him why he didn't use a "real" > signature (i.e. why he didn't sign his name), he just grinned and said > "Who's to say this isn't my

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On May 7, 2011, at 10:57 PM, Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 00:07, MFPA wrote: > Maybe we could use something like > http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper.htm > > I checked the newsgroup (only through Google, last posting from '05) and > don't see the signatures being posted anymore.

Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

On May 7, 2011, at 11:04 PM, Jerome Baum wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 04:53, David Shaw wrote: > I knew a man (a lawyer, as it happened) who always signed documents with > several loops in a row. When I asked him why he didn't use a "real" > signature (i.e. why he didn't sign his name), he

Fwd: Best practice for periodic key change?

Hey Matthew, http://www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper/stampinf.htm refers to comp.security.pgp.announce but I can't find recent postings there (only some references to the newsgroup being closed). If that's true, you might want to update the page. -- Forwarded message -- From: David Sha