Dear GnuPG developers and contributors,
today is “I love Free Software”-Day. A day to thank all the hard working
people behind Free Software. So instead a bug report, a feature request,
or discussing a problem today I want to thank all the people involved in
GnuPG coding and promoting.
This is f
Hello, Werner and GnuPG lovers,
I'd like to share Matthias Kirschner's article today.
http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/i-love-free-software-thanks-to-all-the-gnupg-contributors/
And I'd like to say, thank you to all in this opportunity.
Well, let me wrote something to celebrate http://ilovefs.org/
In
Am Fr 13.02.2015, 19:54:44 schrieb @bitmessage.ch:
> When generating a uid for a key using gpg2 (2.0.25), and attempting to
> input an email address containing a tilde (~), I receive an invalid
> email error. There seems to be no way I can find to bypass this
> restriction, and use my "invalid" ema
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:03, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> gpg2 --list-keys for me looks at /home/dkg/.gnupg/pubring.kbx even
> though /home/dkg/.gnupg/pubring.gpg exists.
Right, but only if pubring.kbx has the OpenPGP flag set:
$ kbxutil ~/.gnupg/pubring.kbx | head -10 | grep ^Flag
Flags:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 23:05, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
> Hmmm. Some exotic uses with ElGamal keys were removed after a bug was
> discovered AFAIK. And thinking on some discussions about pgp 2
The reason for Elgamal signing keys was that back when I started with
GnuPG it was not clear whether DS
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 23:23, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> Encouraging this kind of use seems risky. I certainly wouldn't want to
> do it without being able to have gpg-agent prompt me on my local machine
> for each use of the key. Its current silent operation once the
Similar as with smartcards
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 13 February 2015 at 7:41:14 PM, in
, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Postel's sentiments were more, "Reject traffic that
> does not conform to the spec, even if it's in common
> use; accept traffic that conforms to the protocol spec,
> eve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 13 February 2015 at 1:14:25 PM, in
, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:22:23 +, MFPA stated:
>> My preference is Inline: I want everything right there
>> in the message body where I can see it.
> Exactly what is it you feel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 13 February 2015 at 11:28:43 AM, in
, Stephan Beck wrote:
> BAD Signature from xx
I get that as well.
> As a
> security measure I have assigned your key a non-trust
> attribute.
Is that something like a local signature?
- --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Friday 13 February 2015 at 5:12:18 PM, in
, Ville Määttä
wrote:
> Fortunately it certainly does not.
I doubt that many spam emails contain an inline OpenPGP signature, or
text that looks like one.
- --
Best regards
MFPA
On 2015-02-12 23:46, Xavier Maillard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in my quest of the perfect setup, I am asking myself what is the
> prefered way to sign a message: inline (like this one) or using a MIME header
> ?
>
> Is there a big thumb rule to respect ?
>
> Regards
> --
> Sent with my mu4e
This is
> Rejecting traffic that does not conform to the spec, even if it's in
> common use is counter-intuitive.
To you, perhaps, sure -- to me, no. Either way it doesn't matter; the
guidance is what it is, and many counterintuitive things turn out to be
true.
> It seems to be denying yourself access
On Wed 2015-02-11 14:40:39 -0500, Werner Koch wrote:
> The GnuPG Project is pleased to announce the availability of the
> third release of GnuPG modern: Version 2.1.2.
Thank you, Werner! 2.1.2 is now in debian experimental, where it builds
cleanly on all architectures:
https://buildd.debian.or
> > When generating a uid for a key using gpg2 (2.0.25), and attempting
> > to input an email address containing a tilde (~), I receive an
> > invalid email error. There seems to be no way I can find to bypass
> > this restriction, and use my "invalid" email.
>
> You need --allow-freeform-uid to
On 2015-02-14 14:33, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Friday 13 February 2015 at 7:41:14 PM, in
> , Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
>
> > Postel's sentiments were more, "Reject traffic that
> > does not conform to the spec, even if it's in common
> > use; accept traffic that conforms to the protocol spec,
>
FWIW, I hate this debate, and try hard to stay out of it. But it really
bothers me when people spread factually incorrect information,
especially when they try to use that as the basis of their arguments
for/against one method or the other.
On 2/14/15 7:49 AM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
Pro
On 2015-02-14 13:36, Doug Barton wrote:
> FWIW, I hate this debate, and try hard to stay out of it. But it really
> bothers me when people spread factually incorrect information, especially
> when they try to use that as the basis of their arguments for/against one
> method or the other.
>
> On 2/
Hi
Am 14.02.2015 um 15:44 schrieb MFPA:
> Hi
>
>
> On Friday 13 February 2015 at 11:28:43 AM, in
> , Stephan Beck wrote:
>
>
>
>> BAD Signature from xx
>
> I get that as well.
>
>
>
>> As a
>> security measure I have assigned your key a non-trust
>> attribute.
>
> Is that something like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> This part appears to be out of date:
>
> Since PGP/MIME can't reliably be sent to the three largest GnuPG
> mailing lists, itâs hard to claim that PGP/MIME is ready for
> widespread usage. For now, itâs best
19 matches
Mail list logo
