On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:26, kloec...@kde.org said:
> Supports GnuPG versions: 1.4, 2.0
FWIW: Kontact Touch has been developed against GnuPG 2.1. I am not sure
whether it works with 2.0. The Linux version will likely work but the
WindowsCE version won't work - but well, nobody is using the latter
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:22, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> I can add these: it shouldn't be a problem. The reason I'm using XHTML,
> incidentally, is to make it as easy as possible for you to convert it
> into org-mode: an hour's work with a SAX parser should be able to take
> care of most of it. I
On 2012-06-05 at 17:55 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> gniibe: You reported a couple of other possible problems. Do you thing
> we should go after them for a 2.0.20?
My changes are basically two areas in master branch.
(1) Fix of ccid-driver.c for partial support of extended APDU.
This was neede
Can someone please verify that I have the legit public key to verify GnuPG
with? I checked the website but the Fingerprint is not given anywhere.
I got this Fingerprint for the Public Key I downloaded
D869 2123 C406 5DEA 5E0F 3AB5 249B 39D2 4F25 E3B6
Sam Smith June 6, 2012
9:25:37 AM wrote:
Sam Smith wrote on 6/6/12 8:54 AM:
> Can someone please verify that I have the legit public key to verify
> GnuPG with? I checked the website but the Fingerprint is not given anywhere.
>
> I got this Fingerprint for the Public Key I downloaded
>
> D869 21
Yeah, thanks. It's the key that signed the .sig and the one I needed to
download to verify. I downloaded it from a Key Server--don't know how else to
get the public key.
I checked the gpg package legitimacy on a computer that already had gpg
installed. But wanted to make sure I had a legit pub
On Wednesday 06 of June 2012 09:39:12 Sam Smith wrote:
> Yeah, thanks. It's the key that signed the .sig and the one I needed to
> download to verify. I downloaded it from a Key Server--don't know how else
> to get the public key.
>
> I checked the gpg package legitimacy on a computer that already
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/06/12 13:54, Sam Smith wrote:
> Can someone please verify that I have the legit public key to verify GnuPG
> with? I checked
> the website but the Fingerprint is not given anywhere.
>
> I got this Fingerprint for the Public Key I downloaded
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06.06.2012 15:54, Sam Smith wrote:
> Can someone please verify that I have the legit public key to
> verify GnuPG with? I checked the website but the Fingerprint is not
> given anywhere.
>
> I got this Fingerprint for the Public Key I downloaded
>
On 06/06/12 17:58, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
>> D869 2123 C406 5DEA 5E0F 3AB5 249B 39D2 4F25 E3B6
> Looks correct.
>
> ``` % gpg --recv-keys D8692123C4065DEA5E0F3AB5249B39D24F25E3B6 gpg:
> requesting key 4F25E3B6 from hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net gpg: key
> 4F25E3B6: public key "Werner Koch (
yes, impersonation of the UID [Werner Koch (dist sig)] is what I'm trying to
guard against.
My efforts to verify the fingerprint are the best way to do this, correct?
> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21:54:01 +0200
> From: pe...@digitalbrains.com
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: can someon
On 06/06/2012 07:15 PM, Sam Smith wrote:
> My efforts to verify the fingerprint are the best way to do this, correct?
"Best" is a relative term.
The gold standard for validation involves meeting someone who claims to
be Werner Koch, asking him for his passport, checking that his passport
identifi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/12 00:15, Sam Smith wrote:
> yes, impersonation of the UID [Werner Koch (dist sig)] is what I'm trying to
> guard against.
>
> My efforts to verify the fingerprint are the best way to do this, correct?
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 21
13 matches
Mail list logo
