On Tuesday 24 February 2015 01:36:25 Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> thanks for your reply.
>
> On 21/02/15 20:11, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > On Wed 2015-02-18 13:46:19 -0500, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> >> I have a sufficient trust in the security of the server where the
> >> autom
On Sunday 01 March 2015 19:58:19 Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 01.03.2015 um 17:45 schrieb MFPA <2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-
gro...@riseup.net>:
> >> and also gets rid of spam
> >> by requiring a proof of work to send something.
> >
> > Surely, "proof of work" is evidence of performing some otherwise
On Sunday 01 March 2015 23:43:25 Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Am 01.03.2015 um 23:25 schrieb Ingo Klöcker :
> > And most spam is sent by bots. The spammers don't really care how much
> > energy the bots burn. Yes, the amount of spam might decrease because
> > the bots c
On Tuesday 03 March 2015 19:31:14 Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > This is definitely public information from the Snowden leaks. There
> > is also quite a bit of information about other governments doing
>
> > similar things. Here's one example article:
> If all encrypted traffic is deemed suspicious
On Thursday 19 March 2015 09:18:03 Thomas F. Ruddy wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'd be interested in hearing Werner Koch's take on this recent
> innovation. Werner, you speak German:
>
> A new "Everyman's software" featuring certification, key servers,
> currently Windows only (Linux planned),
>
> htt
On Wednesday 25 March 2015 21:06:53 martijn. list wrote:
> On 03/25/2015 08:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 3/25/15 11:08 AM, Bob (Robert) Cavanaugh wrote:
> >> Doug,
> >> Signature shows as an attachment "signature.asc". No evidence that PGP
> >> actions were envoked. Work forces use of Synaptic
On Monday 27 July 2015 07:55:03 n...@enigmail.net wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> in March we discussed here
> "German ct magazine postulates death of pgp encryption"
> and Patrick Brunschwig proposed a way to validate email addresses
>
> I also had in mind:
> > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/
On Monday 27 July 2015 21:05:26 Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On 27.07.15 16:31, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > This whole concept of a whitelist of "trusted validation servers"
> > included in the email clients sounds a lot like the CA certificate
> >
On Monday 27 July 2015 20:19:07 n...@enigmail.net wrote:
> Am 27.07.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > This whole concept of a whitelist of "trusted validation servers" included
> > in the email clients sounds a lot like the CA certificate bundles
> > included
On Tuesday 28 July 2015 09:22:23 Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did you consider user a proof-of-work scheme? For instance, the user
> does a 1 week PoW, signs the result and attackes it to the key. These
> would be refreshed about once a year.
Which problem do you propose to address with su
On Wednesday 29 July 2015 07:42:34 n...@enigmail.net wrote:
> Am 29.07.2015 um 03:30 schrieb MFPA:
> > Why not simplify the workflow:-
> >
> > 1. key reaches validation server.
> >
> > 2. for each UID containing an email address, validation server creates
> >a copy of the key stripped of all
On Wednesday 29 July 2015 01:48:54 MFPA wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 July 2015 at 8:17:28 PM, in
> , n...@enigmail.net wrote:
> > AFAIK, there are not THAT many faked keys, but the
> > problem exists especially for key parties of our
> > internet world (a famous German magazine, at least one
> > GPG tool
On Wednesday 29 July 2015 14:09:54 Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> At Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:30:47 +0100,
>
> MFPA wrote:
> > On Monday 27 July 2015 at 1:15:57 PM, in
> >
> > , Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > > Regarding the design: personally, I wouldn't have the
> > > user follow a link that includes a swis
[Please do not CC me. I am subscribed.]
On Wednesday 29 July 2015 13:07:20 n...@enigmail.net wrote:
> I see no reason NOT to solve this problem,
> but I see many reasons to solve it.
>
> Just saying "deal with it" simply means that
> we place unneccesary burden on OpenPGP users.
> IMO, that's a r
On Thursday 30 July 2015 08:04:28 Viktor Dick wrote:
> Now that I think about it - if I search for the original author of the
> c't article (j...@ct.de), who complained about getting mails that were
> encrypted to some fake key, I would assume that the keys 38EA4970 and
> E1374764 are both genuine,
On Wednesday 30 September 2015 15:58:51 Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > I create for myself a gpg key and want to get it signed
>
> More important than whether your certificate gets signed is who signs
> the certificate, who they are connected to, and so on.
>
> Some people will sign almost anything.
On Saturday 07 November 2015 17:31:38 MFPA wrote:
> On Saturday 7 November 2015 at 12:30:53 PM, in
> , Daniel Baur wrote:
> > I don’t really understand what is the earn here.
> >
> > If I send a encrypted message to you and EvilPerson
> > (together in the same eMail), you receive the email and
> >
On Wednesday 16 December 2015 13:41:00 Anthony Papillion wrote:
> While I know it's not a big concern at the moment, we are well on the
> way to a future that includes quantum computing. While some in the
> computer science and crypto fields say we won't see a crypto breaking
> quantum computer for
On Thursday 24 December 2015 17:02:54 Matthias Apitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I do not fully understand why some 4 random words like
>
> Correct, horse! Battery staple!
>
> is a better passphrase like, for example
>
> Und allein dieser Mangel und nichts anderes führte zum Tod.
>
> i.e.
On Friday 25 December 2015 18:41:30 Matthias Apitz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I read that I should self-sign my pub key, but when I do this after
> creation, it says:
>
> $ LANG=C gpg2 --sign-key Matthias
>
> pub rsa2048/AA1EF4741F9046D4
> created: 2015-12-25 expires: never usage: SC
>
On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:31:31 Aaron Tovo wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Today I re-downloaded the .bz2 and .sig. And the verification worked
> (see output below). I did file diffs between the new and the previous
> downloads with 'diff' and they are identical. So I tried verify on the
>
On Saturday 13 February 2016 18:20:09 st...@mailbox.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a few days ago I downloaded
>
>
> http://gensho.acc.umu.se/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-dvd/debian-te
> sting-amd64-DVD-1.iso Resolving hostname »gensho.acc.umu.se
> (gensho.acc.umu.se)«... 130.239.18.176, 2001:6b0:e:201
On Friday 19 February 2016 15:12:34 Andrea Dari wrote:
> 1) This is the general situation:
>
> http://pastebin.com/NXuJj2h5
>
> User one is the user that i fully trust and has a revocation dated on
> 18 February 2016
>
> 2) Here you can see User one pbkey details:
>
> http://pastebin.com/g2tQKz
On Tuesday 24 May 2016 08:26:54 Werner Koch wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2016 20:19, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> > At first blush it appears the answer is "no, but most people use
> > UTF-8.">
> > If so that's fine, but I'll have to silently discard a number of
> > user
>
> OpenPGP requires that th
On Saturday 18 June 2016 14:46:06 Hauke Westemeier wrote:
> Would it be possible to make the arrow keys (left, right,
> top, bottom) cancel the pinetry dialog?
Did you try pressing Esc to cancel the dialog?
Regards,
Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_
This is the English GnuPG user mailing list. The German GnuPG mailing
list is
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-de
On Tuesday 19 July 2016 17:58:33 Reinhard Irmer wrote:
> Hi,
> gibt es eine Möglichkeit gnupg-verschlüsselte Texte online zu
> entschlüsseln um sie lesbar zu machen? Key
On Thursday 21 July 2016 12:27:20 d...@mielko.com wrote:
> From: "Robert J. Hansen"
>> gpg --recipient ID-A --local-user ID-B --encrypt --sign filename.txt
>
> Still need your help guys. The syntax listed below works (or I think
> it does) but how do I verify that the file was encrypted with key
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:12:15 Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > A plain text copy is below. If you have comments, please send them as
> > reply.
> I hate to be the one to rain on this parade, but this seems like a mistake.
>
> > GnuPG 2.1 provides an simple but efficient solution to store a key
On Wednesday 07 September 2016 22:20:42 Christopher Beck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a (maybe) stupid question: the matching key to my recipient can be
> fetched by keyservers and i determine the korrect key of all of the
> (sometimes "wrong" keys") by vaidating the signatures according to the WoT.
> So
On Sunday 11 September 2016 21:17:31 Moritz Klammler wrote:
> Today, I've posted a signed message (OpenPGP MIME) to a public
> mailing list I'm subscribed to. When it was delivered back to me,
> the signature was broken. I investigated the case and found out that
> some silly MTA had un-escaped a
On Thursday 05 January 2017 15:56:18 Roger wrote:
> Great. However I had no idea my mailing list post finally made it to
> the mailing list, as the mailing list did not send a copy of my post;
> even though this option is activated within the mailing list
> settings.
As others have pointed out in
On Thursday 23 February 2017 23:38:36 Leo Gaspard wrote:
> On 02/23/2017 09:00 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > To which I said, "Create two keys with the same fingerprint. Sign a
> > contract with one, then renege on the deal. When you get called
> > into court, say "I never signed
On Saturday 17 August 2013 06:56:45 Tiwari, Ashish wrote:
> I have generated a new gpg key, but I am having the below problem.
>
> echo |usr/local/bin/gpg --no-tty --passphrase-fd 0 -o
> /apploatr/.gnupg/ashish.pgp -sign --encrypt -r Ashish
> /apploatr/.gnupg/test.txt
Does the following work?
us
On Saturday 31 August 2013 11:46:31 Ole Tange wrote:
> The FAQ
> http://www.gnupg.org/faq/GnuPG-FAQ.html#what-is-the-recommended-key-s
> ize recommends a key size of 1024 bits.
>
> Reading http://www.keylength.com/en/4/ I am puzzled why GnuPG
> recommends that.
>
> Why not recommend a key size th
On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> > Why not recommend a key size that will not be broken for the rest of
> > your natural life?
>
> Thanks for all your feed back on the list. I have now summed up the
> concerns raised on
On Sunday 08 September 2013 10:29:18 Ole Tange wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Ingo Klöcker
wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 September 2013 23:35:08 Ole Tange wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
> >>
> >> http://oletange.blogspo
On Monday 16 September 2013 11:57:04 Doug Barton wrote:
> The way that your signer did it is _a_ standard way to do it. CAFF is
> a very popular program for that, and there is another here that is
> also pretty good: http://www.phildev.net/pius/news.shtml
>
> I have another philosophy that works f
On Monday 16 September 2013 23:00:22 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 16/09/13 22:37, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> > Too bad. I guess one could do it by starting at the destination and
> > following signatures back using a shortest path algorithm and a lot
> > of requests to the keyserver, though.
>
> Dijk
On Tuesday 17 September 2013 11:38:55 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 17/09/13 11:07, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > > The independent paths need to be completely disjoint (except for
> > > start and end point) _and_ they all need to start with Philip's
> > > key.
> >
> > AFAIK, there is no such requirement i
On Saturday 02 November 2013 19:48:39 Uwe Brauer wrote:
> >> "MFPA" == MFPA writes:
>> Hi
>> On Sunday 27 October 2013 at 2:46:05 PM, in
>> , Uwe Brauer wrote:
>>
>> Isn't the NSA "a government based organisation?" Surely
>> guilt-by-association renders every government b
On Friday 15 November 2013 21:33:08 Mark Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is GPL 3 based implementation of CURVE25519 called Pretty Curved
> Privacy (pcp1).
> http://www.daemon.de/PrettyCurvedPrivacy
>
> What do you think about using parts of the ppc1 source code to implement
> such functionality
On Friday 15 November 2013 11:39:30 Phil Calvin wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2013, at 11:02, "Thomas Harning Jr." wrote:
> > The general practice I follow is to verify fingerprint and ID separately
> > then, in order to verify control of email address and private key, send
> > the signed ID encrypted to th
On Tuesday 03 December 2013 19:03:13 Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 12/3/2013 6:20 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> > Imagine a certificate which is always prolonged for just one day. If
> > this gets compromised then it will not be prolonged any more (at
> > least not by its owner but we all love our highl
On Thursday 05 December 2013 19:47:57 Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Do 05.12.2013, 19:30:07 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > your assertion is correct.
> >
> >
> > In the first scenario
> >
> > > > a) the key has been compromised and revoked and you don&#
On Thursday 05 December 2013 19:47:57 Hauke Laging wrote:
> BTW, OT: May I point you at this?
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=318005
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326476
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326477
I'm sometimes pondering a different approach. I'm quite pessimisti
On Friday 06 December 2013 10:10:41 Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:38, kloec...@kde.org said:
> > Unfortunately, I think email is a lost cause because there are so
> > many different mail clients that will never support encryption. I
> > think we
>
> Please name those email clients. I
On Sunday 05 January 2014 14:04:49 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> [1] By the way, your statement might not even be true; how often have
> you written "See the attachment" and then forgetting to attach the
> file? I have done it countless times.
I bet Hauke never forgot to attach the file because he is usi
On Thursday 03 April 2014 15:06:57 Tim Prepscius wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> So as I said before, I'm working on a pgp base web mail app:
> https://github.com/timprepscius/mv
>
> I am having problems validating the signature of a small percentage of
> test cases. However GPG with apple-mail says the
On Thursday 10 April 2014 18:03:17 Nicolai Josuttis wrote:
> Can anybody answer/explain whether there is or might be a problem or
> risk if using encryption combined with bcc addresses with GPG?
> And if so, what should I do/avoid to run into this problem?
> I am especially interested in an answer
On Thursday 17 April 2014 11:36:59 MFPA wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014 at 9:59:21 PM, in
> , Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > Apart from using the '--throw-keyids' option you could
> > send multiple copies of the message. One copy for the
> > public recipients wh
On Thursday 24 April 2014 21:07:54 t...@piratemail.se wrote:
> Thank you for your responses. I'm still mulling over what to do. Your
> input has been revealing.
>
> I think I'm leaning towards the 1 year key, with a 1 year "fallow"
> time. For the reasons implied by Daniel, (which I interpolated).
On Saturday 10 May 2014 01:23:57 Tomer Altman wrote:
> To whom it may concern,
>
> I recall reading somewhere some best practices for creating one's
> initial RSA key pair that they intend for building their Web of
> Trust. I think the recommended steps were:
>
> 1. Find a computer that you think
On Thursday 29 May 2014 10:03:52 tux.tsn...@free.fr wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Here the official Renier SCT support answer :
>
> "This product is mainly developed for German market, therefore it is
> necessary to keep the Secoder2 specs. All PIN messages are definied
> there, so they will ALWAYS be
On Thursday 12 June 2014 09:06:05 Mark H. Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:34:51AM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 02:45, jer...@jerome.cc said:
> [snip]
>
> > > any copyright issue we might have to use another name, at least
> > > until we get approval to use the traditi
On Wednesday 02 July 2014 19:38:41 Linux DEBIAN wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>
> now I use KMail post client where it's alla automatically checked
> but when I am on the webmail where the signing and verifying is not
> "built-in" supported and when I receive an e-mail with an attchement
> "signature.a
On Thursday 03 July 2014 08:49:12 Linux DEBIAN wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thanks for your reply.
>
> Maybe I do soemthing wrong and following the instructions, still
> receiving 'bad signature'.
I'm not surprised. It seems that Francesco Ariis has left out a crucial
step (or you have removed it when
On Saturday 05 July 2014 21:05:36 Yahoo wrote:
> Further to my last email I ran the script
> sh gpg-error-config --version and it gave 1.10 so this is why its
> not being accepted ? I have installed version 1.13? I don't know how
> this happens but what should i do to get an installation of
> gp
Hi David,
On Saturday 12 July 2014 09:02:09 da...@gbenet.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
[snip]
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
> href="http:
On Friday 18 July 2014 02:03:24 Hauke Laging wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there any OpenPGP mail client which supports symmetric encryption?
KMail does not. At least, KMail does not support creating such messages.
It's possible that KMail would be able to read such messages since the
decryption is de
On Friday 18 July 2014 19:21:05 Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Fr 18.07.2014, 09:46:14 schrieb Doug Barton:
> > Hauke,
> >
> > I think you skated past a previous question about your idea, and I'm
> > also interested in the answer so I'll ask it again. :)
> >
> > If you have a secure channel of communic
On Friday 18 July 2014 21:01:54 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 18/07/14 15:40, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > OpenPGP keys are created and uploaded to some key server
> > automatically, and they are looked up and used automatically
>
> This creates a privacy issue with key lookup. It exp
On Friday 18 July 2014 17:20:27 Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Fr 18.07.2014, 15:40:34 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > > And, quite important: It would not require serious
> > >
> > > development effort as this possibility is built-in with GnuPGP.
> >
> > I thin
On Saturday 19 July 2014 03:46:56 Hauke Laging wrote:
> I guess this discussion does not go well because of a misunderstanding
> or wrong expectations.
>
>
> You and Ingo are talking about "real crypto" issues.
Actually, concerning your proposal, I'm more talking about usability. To
encrypt a m
Hi Peter,
please do not send me direct replies. I am subscribed so reply-to-list
is sufficient. (I wouldn't ask this of you if I'd receive two copies of
your replies, but I only receive the direct replies and this means I
cannot use reply-to-list. The mailing list is correctly configured, so I
On Saturday 19 July 2014 04:37:56 Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Sa 19.07.2014, 01:42:19 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > Since you are also using KMail I invite
> > you to test whether KMail is able to decrypt symmetrically encrypted
> > OpenPGP/MIME messages out-of-the-box. It mig
On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote:
> I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to
> understand what the differences are between --clearsign and
> --detach-sign signatures.
The RFC is probably much easier to read than the source code:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880
On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote:
> I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to
> understand what the differences are between --clearsign and
> --detach-sign signatures.
>
> This came about whilst writing code that calls on "gpg --verify" on
> detached signatures; sp
On Saturday 30 August 2014 23:11:17 TJ wrote:
> On 30/08/14 22:20, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > BTW, which language do you want to write the code in?
>
> Well, I'm working in C to add another option to gpg, but the code that
> needs this is a Python library (that imports pytho
On Wednesday 29 October 2014 22:18:13 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 2014-10-29 21:49, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> > Surely Peter knows this too ;-)
> >
> > More likely 128 was a typo for the more common older RSA key of 1028
> > ...
>
> No, I'm using a strict definition of brute force.
>
> For p =
On Tuesday 18 November 2014 22:43:18 MFPA wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 November 2014 at 6:15:57 PM, in
> , Mirimir wrote:
> > As long as messages were separately encrypted to each
> > recipient, no third parties would be involved.
>
> For an email message with multiple recipients, I think most mail
> cl
On Thursday 20 November 2014 14:36:35 Schlacta, Christ wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2014 1:58 PM, "Ingo Klöcker" wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 November 2014 22:43:18 MFPA wrote:
> > KMail encrypts an individual copy for each BCC recipient. I thought
> > Thunderbird+Enigmail w
On Sunday 23 November 2014 13:12:47 Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
> Hello gnupg-users!
>
> I am the lead dev on Mailpile, a free software e-mail client where we're
> doing our best to improve the usability of PGP-encrypted e-mail. I have
> been pondering for quite some time the relative merits of
On Sunday 23 November 2014 18:05:03 Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson wrote:
> Hi Samir,
>
> Samir Nassar wrote:
> > I would care more about the arguments if you were able to re-state them
> > while dropping references to legacy email clients. I don't think new mail
> > clients have an obligation to be bac
On Thursday 27 November 2014 17:10:08 NdK wrote:
> Il 27/11/2014 11:28, Peter Lebbing ha scritto:
>
> [Resending to list]
>
> > Perhaps I should add that it takes real research and formal proof to show
> > that this randomized hashing doesn't add attack vectors, and I have been
> > glossing over
On Friday 28 November 2014 15:04:56 gnupgp...@on.yourweb.de wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Lebbing [mailto:pe...@digitalbrains.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:16 PM
> > To: gnupgp...@on.yourweb.de; gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> > Also, @g, as you
> > apparently call y
On Sunday 30 November 2014 10:46:40 gnupgp...@on.yourweb.de wrote:
> >> I am sorry, all my replies are sent to gnupg-users@gnupg.org only,
> >
> > Yes, that's the right procedure.
> > The problem Peter mentioned is caused by the fact that your replies lack
> > the message headers (In-reply-to and
On Thursday 18 December 2014 10:59:09 Dave Pawson wrote:
> Running Fedora 21, 64 bit.
> ./configure gave error
> missing ksba
> Downloaded.
> ./configure gave libgpg-error is needed.
>
> # yum install --disablerepo=Dropbox libgpg-error
> Loaded plugins: langpacks
> Package libgpg-error-1.13-3.fc21
On Thursday 01 January 2015 04:59:37 Kelly Dean wrote:
> Getting the fingerprint should not require importing the key. Getting the
> fingerprint should not require writing to any file at all. It should only
> require reading.
I haven't tried with gpg 1.4, but with gpg 2.0.22 it's as easy as
# gpg
On Thursday 01 January 2015 19:19:58 Uwe Brauer wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am sorry if this is a little off-topic but I am not sure where to ask.
> I use both, gpg and smime (the later either with gpgsm or with
> thunderbird)
>
> Recently the German news magazine «Der Spiegel» [1] published more of
> t
On Monday 09 February 2015 20:27:09 Werner Koch wrote:
> Back in October Smári posted an article with the problems he encountered
> while integrating GnuPG into mailpile. See
> https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2014-10-07_Some_Thoughts_on_GnuPG.html .
>
> I asked him whether I may comment on this over
On Tuesday 10 February 2015 10:37:38 Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
> On 2015-02-10 13:30, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 02/10/2015 01:24 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> > > On 10/02/15 12:52, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > >> No, the signature is still valid:
> > > Why? The key was revoked because
On Friday 06 March 2009, Thomas Bohn wrote:
> I currently try to get the gpg-agent to start just one time and not
> to get one more gpg-agent session each time I log in, but it doesn't
> work.
>
> Even the hint in the gpg-agent man page won't work, I still get more
> than one gpg-agent process and
On Sunday 29 March 2009, Hardeep Singh wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I need someone with a Safari browser to test something for me: it
> wont take more than 3 min.
>
> I have a webpage that unjumbles words, and which is somewhat popular.
> I am building a new version which is AJAX based and the prototype is
On Saturday 18 April 2009, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Faramir wrote:
> >> And my last question is how to find for a specific key ?
> >
> > I am not sure, the GUIs I use do that for me.
>
> gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks.keyservers.net --recv-key [keyID]
Or, if you do not know the key ID:
gpg -
On Saturday 25 April 2009, John Clizbe wrote:
> david wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Late here in Cyprus, in Thunderbird, OpenPGP I can sign and encrypt
> > - but say I cc'd to a few people - because if those people are in
> > my key ring will it encrypt for each?
>
> If a valid key can be located for
On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> I'm running Fedora 10 (if anyone cares) with
> gnupg2-2.0.10-1.fc10.i386.
>
> I'm up and rolling, but I'd like to know more about configuring the
> agent. I started the agent via the recommended incantation:
>
> eval "$(gpg-agent --daemon)"
>
> in my
On Saturday 16 May 2009, webmas...@felipe1982.com wrote:
> I will do my best to describe as succinctly and clearly as possible.
> To begin, I use openSUSE, openoffice for documents, and [usually]
> kmail for email. I created a document in OOo and clicked on the
> 'email' button to send it to my "ot
On Monday 01 June 2009, Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 22:52 +0100, Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
> > 2009/5/31 Roger :
> > > I know this sounds ridiculous, but when you consider a
> > > console/terminal to be as good look'n as a girl, and then you're
> > > made to a X window and forced to type i
On Saturday 06 June 2009, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> On Saturday 06 June 2009 13:30:08 David Shaw wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Kārlis Repsons wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > still I have questions :)
> > > This time: is there some gnupg dictated way of setting preference
> > > of which
> > > signing/
On Monday 08 June 2009, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:52, malte.g...@gmx.de said:
> > Does the GPG4Win package support the GnuPG smartcard? Of course,
> > given there is a reader and its driver installed first...
>
> Yes.
>
> > And, how powerful is the Claws client? Does it support mu
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Michel Messerschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:42:45AM -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
> > Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> > > gpg command line and output:
> > > C:\\Program Files\\GNU\\GnuPG\\gpg.exe --charset utf8 --batch
> > > --no-tty --status-fd 2 --keyserver-options auto
On Thursday 27 August 2009, debianfeed wrote:
> Hello
>
> does anybody here know a possibility to use gpg key-groups under
> gnome? groups defined in the gpg.conf
> (e.g. "group mygroupname = 0x9DB0 0x9540")
> do not show up in nautilus' seahorse extension.
>
> kgpg is capable of dealing wi
On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 12:17 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> > Please keep in mind that using a user ID is just to help the user
> > in the most common case. Any proper mail tool won't accept such a
> > solution but either presenr the user a list of mat
On Thursday 24 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 06:04 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure that this will break horribly as soon as the user
> > ID contains non-ASCII characters (as does my user ID). For exactly
> > this reason I made KM
On Friday 25 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/24/2009 04:56 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > Does it also work with keys like 0xCB0D4CAF or 0xAB1BC4E6 created
> > with PGP 6 (or earlier) where the user ID is not UTF-8 encoded?
>
> hm; 0xCB0D4CAF looks to me like i
On Friday 25 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/25/2009 11:06 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> > What troubles me about this sort of behavior is that it is
> > genuinely good and helpful in some cases and baffling and
> > off-putting in others. For example, someone has two different Alice
>
On Saturday 26 September 2009, nschroth wrote:
> David,
>
> On the target (recipient) machine:
> --list-keys shows my Primary Key, My desktop Key and a co-worker's
> desktop key
> --list-secret-keys shows only my Primary Ke
> --list-keys PrimaryKeyUserName it only lists my primary key.
>
> Th
On Monday 28 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/25/2009 02:40 PM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > 0xF661F608 (This is _not_ one of my keys. Funny enough this Ingo
> > Klöcker went to the same school and the same university as I did.)
> >
> > 0x104B0FAF, 0x5706A
On Wednesday 30 September 2009, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Thanks for the discussion, Ingo! This is really useful to me, and i
> appreciate the thought you've obviously put in here.
Thank you, the same to you! You really make me thinking.
> On 09/29/2009 04:32 PM, Ingo Klöcker
On Tuesday 29 September 2009, nschroth wrote:
> Interesting. The key is not listed twice, but...
>
> --list-keys PrimaryUserName shows ALL THREE keys while
> --list-keys PrimaryEmailAddress shows only the primary host key.
>
> Could it be that the name I used for the primary key was CompanyName
>
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
