Am 29 Mar 2005 um 11:15 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:27:27 -0500, John Harrold said:
>
> > given the time frame it probably happened when I was trying to unexpire the
> > key F65A739E. Can you elaborate on the reasons for using a separate key for
> > signing messages?
>
Hi!
I loaded a new key from a keyserver and cleaned it in the '--edit-
key' shell.
When I controlled the result with 'gpg --list-sigs 08B0A90B',
I found a lot of expired signatures. If you look at the output at
sigs from the key CA57AD7C, you see that there are 7 valid newer
signatures from this
Am 7 Sep 2005 um 19:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> I can't seem to duplicate your problem here. Are you sure you
> saved the result when you exited from --edit-key?
As you can see, I did.
I get the message 'already clean', but the sigs are still there.
In spite the output being partly in germa
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 16:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> I'm trying, but I still can't duplicate the problem. Can you put
> together a simple keyring and simple gpg.conf file that still shows
> the problem?
I did what you asked me to do and now I'm completely confused!
First I deleted my gpg.conf,
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> > 2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
> > 'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
> > gefunden' (my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key
> > 0022FA10 found) As you can see i
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. "clean"
> can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
> want cleaned (so it can know which signatures to remove). In your
> case, you need to fetch key CA57
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:29 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
>
> > Interestingly there is a difference, whether I use '--import' to get
> > a key from a 'key.asc' or '--recv-key' to import it fr
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:46 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> Unfortunately not, because without the signing key, gpg can't tell if
> a signature is valid or not. If there is no way to tell if a
> signature is valid then the wrong thing might happen in cleaning.
>
> Here's an example:
>
> signature 1 fro
Am 11 Sep 2005 um 23:01 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:59:53AM -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> > > There is perhaps an argument to be made for a
> > > "super clean" that does clean and also removes any
> > > signature where the signing key is
> > > not
Hi!
I first posted this under an old (but fitting) thread and got no
response. Sorry, if you already read it.
Nowadays there are quite some keys, which have several hundred
signatures on their UIDs. This is a good thing for the WoT, but it
clutters the local keyrings, as normally you don't have
Am 29 Oct 2005 um 2:25 hat Henry Hertz Hobbit geschrieben:
> On 27 Oct 2005 Dirk Traulsen wrote:
>
snip
> > So here is my feature request: Please make an option to delete
> > signatures, for which there is no corresponding signing key on
> > the local keyring.
--
Hi!
I started this thread to make a request for a change of the behaviour
of the 'clean' option:
> Please make an option to delete signatures, for which there is no
> corresponding signing key on the local keyring.
When there was some support for my idea, but no reaction from the
developers, I
Am 27 May 2006 um 19:55 hat Jørgen Lysdal geschrieben:
> I have a revoker on my key that i would like to remove, but i cant
> find a way to do this. Can anyone help?
If you sent your key to a keyserver, then you are out of luck. There
is no way to take something back you sent to a keyserver. You
Am 21 Apr 2007 um 23:25 hat Henry Hertz Hobbit geschrieben:
> Once your changes are done, make sure you generate a new
> revocation file with a:
>
> $ gpg -a --gen-revoke 98E6705C > rev_cpollock_embarqmail_com.asc
>
Is it really necessary to generate a new revocation certificate if
you only cha
Am 4 Jun 2007 um 20:56 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> When I run the check command in edit-key mode, it shows me
> something like
>
> sig!
> or sig!1
> or sig!3
>
> What does this mean?
Hi Hardeep,
there are two answers to your question: A simple one and a difficult
one.
It's easy to
Hi!
I found 3 problems in the manual:
1. In the new manual the following options are missing:
--batch
--yes
--no
2. The manual has now strange gaps in it (at least under German
WinxP):
Here are 3 examples:
SYNOPSIS
gpg [--homedir ___] [--options ] [___] ___ []
--ge
Am 27 Jul 2007 um 10:31 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
> Enter debug in the edit menu to see what packets you have in your
> keyblock.
Is debug and its output format documented somewhere?
Dirk
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://li
Am 2 Nov 2007 um 11:52 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> The new OpenPGP standard has been published.
Congratulations for the new RFC!
But, since 2004, I report regularly at least once a year that the
example for the Radix-64-Encoding in '6.5. Examples of Radix-64' on
page 59 in the rfc is wrong.
Am 8 Feb 2008 um 15:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:07:21PM +0100, Sebastien Chassot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I can't find how list who's a file encrypted for ? I've encrypt several
> > files with different recipients, but I don't remember which.
>
> Just run 'gpg' on t
et key for
user: "Dirk Traulsen (dtl-2) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
4096-bit ELG-E key, ID E192093D, created 2005-10-21 (main key ID
CDDB9911)
Please enter the passphrase:
=====
Dirk Traulsen
___
Gnupg-users ma
other
mails. You are citing them
one
word
per
line.
To be sure that it is no artefact on my side, I checked the archives.
See http://marc.info/?l=gnupg-users&m=120397363028142
and compare to below. There is definitely something wrong on your side.
> - Original Message
> From: Dir
Am 26 Feb 2008 um 9:40 hat Sven Radde geschrieben:
> Hi!
>
> Dirk Traulsen schrieb:
> > b. some keys do not belong to me in a common keyring.
>
> I am really not sure whether that is a good idea at all. Granting other
> people (write!) access to my secret keyring would
ated 2002-01-28
"David M. Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: encrypted with 4096-bit ELG-E key, ID E192093D, created 2005-10-21
"Dirk Traulsen (dtl-2) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: secret key with ID E192093D in keyring
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 9:51 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> Dirk Traulsen dirk.traulsen at lypso.de
> wrote on Wed Feb 27 10:00:25 CET 2008
>
> >You don't believe me to enter 9 times a complete passphrase, do
> you?
>
> i agree with you completely that it would be
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 19:47 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
> The solution to this is pretty clear, we need to read all public key
> encrypted packets first and sort them so that own keys come first
> followed by other keys and finally by the wild card keys. This also
> allows us to order the trial decr
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 13:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:28PM +0100, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> > > >What I meant, was something like this mockup:
> > > ==
> > > >C:\>gpg --recipient-keys ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg
> > >
Am 28 Feb 2008 um 10:04 hat Wilhelm Müller geschrieben:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:23:34 -0500, David Shaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> David> Why?
>
> David> I'm serious - what is the use case here? How often do
> David> people need to list all recipients of a file?
>
> I a
Am 21 Apr 2008 um 9:43 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
>
> > So, GnuPG 1.4 implements OpenPGP. GnuPG 2.0 implements OpenPGP
> > and S/MIME.
> >
> > So 2.0 is "better" than 1.4 if you need S/MIME, otherwise not.
> >
> > So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuP
Am 26 Apr 2008 um 2:20 hat Robert J. Hansen geschrieben:
> Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> > gpg == GnuPG == GnuPG Classic
> > gpgs == GnuPG+S == GnuPG+S/MIME
>
> My own two cents' worth:
(...)
> Call it GnuPS, for the GNU Privacy Suite. If additional tools,
&g
29 matches
Mail list logo
