On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 21:00, st...@mailbox.org said:
> why have I been receiving the mails of this list via gnupg-users-bounces
> for a couple of months now, whereas before that I had been receiving them
> from the gnupg-users? Is there any reason for this?
Mailman always uses a *-bounces address s
On 17/01/16 21:00, Doug Barton wrote:
> You glossed over the points in my previous messages about the fact
> that we cannot know for sure if the person sending the message is
> actually who we think it is [...]
Well, to me it sounded like you said "Signature subkeys aren't enough by
themselves, so
On 17/01/16 18:32, Gabriel Philippe wrote:
>
> I find quite funny reading from people advocating for ToFU while not
> even signing their e-mails.
I find it funny that on a gpg users mailing list, out of 80 emails since
new year, only 15 have signatures at all, and three of those are mine*.
Even We
On 18/01/16 14:10, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> I find it funny that on a gpg users mailing list, out of 80 emails since
> new year, only 15 have signatures at all, and three of those are mine*.
> Even Werner doesn't sign his mails.
Since it's been debated over and over again on this mailing list, I
> I find it funny that on a gpg users mailing list, out of 80 emails since
> new year, only 15 have signatures at all, and three of those are mine*.
> Even Werner doesn't sign his mails.
This is because in the absence of trust, signatures are meaningless.
Who on this list has verified my certifica
On Monday, January 18, 2016 09:17:31 AM Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> This is because in the absence of trust, signatures are meaningless.
> Who on this list has verified my certificate to any real degree? Samir
> Nassar, Patrick Brunschwig, maybe one or two others. Who on this list
> would invest my
This happens all the time with default key server hkp://keys.gnupg.net,
with pgp.mit.edu it's the same, but slightly higher chance to get a
proper result.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnu
