Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > When you work in compliance mode it should be IHMO possible that
> > people wishing to communicate with you (from foreign countries) and
> > may have a different opinion about privacy,
>
> Sure. And if they're important enough for me to justify breaking
> compliance,
On Thu, 14 May 2020 23:01, Stefan Claas said:
> you would consider including it in GnuPG too and reflecting it in the
> respective RFC?
The User-IDs are an integral part of OpenPGP and at the core of its
design. All kind of important information is bound to the user ids and
thus a key w/o a user
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020 23:01, Stefan Claas said:
>
> > you would consider including it in GnuPG too and reflecting it in
> > the respective RFC?
>
> The User-IDs are an integral part of OpenPGP and at the core of its
> design. All kind of important information is bound to the
On Freitag, 15. Mai 2020 13:29:31 CEST Stefan Claas wrote:
> What I don't understand is why you are not liking the idea to allow
> GnuPG to automatically import and process UID-less public key blocks,
> if people who trust the GnuPG brand ask for this?
Because in GnuPG the validity of keys is boun
Hi Ingo,
On 15.05.2020 14:35, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> Because in GnuPG the validity of keys is bound to validity and owner trust of
> UIDs. No UID -> invalid key. Why do you want to be able to import a key in
> GnuPG that would be utterly unusable?
AFAIK key validity and owner trust are per key n
I think we are conflating two related but distinct ideas here.
On 15/05/2020 13:35, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> Why do you want to be able to import a key in
> GnuPG that would be utterly unusable?
There are use cases where you might want to transfer only the
modifications to a key, without necessaril
On 15/05/2020 14:01, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz via Gnupg-users wrote:
> AFAIK key validity and owner trust are per key not per User ID.
Ownertrust is per-key, but validity is per-UID. On my local machine `gpg
--list-keys wik...@metacode.biz` shows:
```
pub rsa4096/0x6C8857E0D8E8F074 2017-01-01 [C] [e
> Certainly there are many reasons to extend the standard, which is not
> set in stone and which is not a politically adopted law, for meaningful
> things.
Yes. If you want to talk about changing the standard please bring it up
to the proper mailing list. Here is not the place for it. If you ca
> GnuPG always asks IIRC new users for their Name and email address
> and does not tell them in advance that they can use a free form UID,
> without an email address, thus being able to use a key for multiple
> accounts or purposes, without adding additional UIDs.
It is not the job of the command-
On 15.05.2020 15:21, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> Ownertrust is per-key, but validity is per-UID.
Andrew there are two validity values:
$ gpg --edit-key andrewg
pub rsa4096/FB73E21AF1163937
created: 2013-07-02 expires: 2021-01-07 usage: SCA
--> trust: unknown validity: marginal <-
On 15/05/2020 14:34, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote:
>
> When you sign someone else User ID it's not your User ID that is doing
> the signing it it's your key that's why you need a key validity that's
> separated from User ID (key validity is calculated from User ID validity).
The inputs to the WoT ar
Hi, I'm checking if my subscription is valid.
I look forward to hearing from you.
This message has been digitally signed by Arthur Dasaviour
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:35, Ingo Klöcker said:
> UIDs. No UID -> invalid key. Why do you want to be able to import a key in
> GnuPG that would be utterly unusable?
FWIW, the expiration time of a key is also bound to the user-id as well
as key preferences and all kind of other possiblke gadgets.
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > GnuPG always asks IIRC new users for their Name and email address
> > and does not tell them in advance that they can use a free form UID,
> > without an email address, thus being able to use a key for multiple
> > accounts or purposes, without adding additional UIDs.
> We now have the situation that either parents or teachers, etc. can
> choose between a software which allows UID-less public key
> generation, for their minors / students, themselves...
They are free to use whatever identifier they like for a UID, even just
the key ID. A UID-free certificate
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:58:51AM -0700, Arthur wrote in
<5d1e3dd6e2e4c31ae60ec2a938a53342.squirrel@giyzk7o6dcunb2ry.onion>:
Hi, I'm checking if my subscription is valid.
Your subscription is...
This message has been digitally signed by Arthur Dasaviour
...your signature is not. Just wri
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > We now have the situation that either parents or teachers, etc. can
> > choose between a software which allows UID-less public key
> > generation, for their minors / students, themselves...
>
> They are free to use whatever identifier they like for a UID, even
> jus
On 15.05.2020 16:43, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> The inputs to the WoT are the signatures and the ownertrust values, and
> the outputs are UID validities. "Key validity" is neither an input nor a
> meaningful output of the system.
Key validity directly influences the "WARNING: This key is not certi
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:07:40PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
> > > We now have the situation that either parents or teachers, etc. can
> > > choose between a software which allows UID-less public key
> > > generation, for their minors / students, themselves...
> >
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:33:12PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:07:40PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > > We now have the situation that either parents or teachers, etc. can
> > > > choose between a software which allows UID-less publ
Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:07:40PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Mind you, I have only asked that GnuPG should support the import and
> > processing of UID-less public key blocks and did not requested that
> > this should be a default behaviour in the key generation proc
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54:32PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Peter Pentchev wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:07:40PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> > > Mind you, I have only asked that GnuPG should support the import and
> > > processing of UID-less public key blocks and did not reques
Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:54:32PM +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > You know what, the most interesting thing of this ML for me is that
> > when people, do a request or suggestion the old guard is always
> > there to defend some standard and are not accepting that a new
> >
I know this may be a subjective question but what is the best keyserver
to use? I use GPG4Win with the Enigmail plugin for Thunderbird. The
keyservers listed in Enigmail are:
vks://keys.openpgp.org, hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net,
hkps://pgp.mit.edu
The keyserver that is used in Kelopatra
On Fri, 2020-05-15 at 16:52 -0700, Mark wrote:
> I know this may be a subjective question but what is the best keyserver
> to use? I use GPG4Win with the Enigmail plugin for Thunderbird. The
> keyservers listed in Enigmail are:
>
> vks://keys.openpgp.org, hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net,
> h
25 matches
Mail list logo
