-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Monday 1 August 2016 at 6:31:15 AM, in
, Lachlan Gunn
wrote:
> Hello,
> Has anyone had a go at using DKIM signatures as a
> way of verifying
> control of an email address with GPG?
> I've seen a few mentions of the idea online,
> particularly
Hello,
I see that there are three versions of GnuPG available. Assuming
no hardware constraints, is there any reason to choose Classic 1.4
or Stable 2.0 instead of Modern 2.1? It appears to do everything
the others can and more.
Whitey
___
Gnupg-user
On 01/08/16 17:54, whi...@mixnym.net wrote:
> I see that there are three versions of GnuPG available. Assuming no hardware
> constraints, is there any reason to choose Classic 1.4 or Stable 2.0 instead
> of Modern 2.1? It appears to do everything the others can and more.
I think usually the const
On 01-08-2016 17:54, whi...@mixnym.net wrote:
> I see that there are three versions of GnuPG available. Assuming
> no hardware constraints, is there any reason to choose Classic 1.4
> or Stable 2.0 instead of Modern 2.1? It appears to do everything
> the others can and more.
It does not. If you
On 01/08/16 19:53, Johan Wevers wrote:
> It does not. If you want to be able to read pgp 2.x encoded archives you'd
> better go for 1.4.
Incidentally, for this use case I'd personally recommend to use 2.1 for
everything except accessing those ancient archives, and just use 1.4 for that,
if that is
On 01.08.16 19:28, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 01/08/16 17:54, whi...@mixnym.net wrote:
>> I see that there are three versions of GnuPG available. Assuming no hardware
>> constraints, is there any reason to choose Classic 1.4 or Stable 2.0 instead
>> of Modern 2.1? It appears to do everything the ot
On Mon 2016-08-01 15:12:21 -0400, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 01/08/16 19:53, Johan Wevers wrote:
>> It does not. If you want to be able to read pgp 2.x encoded archives you'd
>> better go for 1.4.
>
> Incidentally, for this use case I'd personally recommend to use 2.1 for
> everything except accessi
Hi, thanks for the response.
> The links you provided point out that DKIM certifies only the domain
> of the email address, not the user part. The From address in the email
> header may not be the same as the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP dialogue.
> It might be that the first is trus...@example.com
