* Terje Elde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000418 12:14]:
> Hmm, this does seem to fix my problem and then some :) Lots of thanks.
Well that was a bit of a jump to a conclusion. It sets Content-type to
application/pgp. What's the "right way" of stopping it from doing that?
The whole
msg.pgp
* Peter Palfrader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000418 10:32]:
> Hmmm. mutt 1.1.11i does support it.
>
> In my muttrc I find:
>
> set pgp_create_traditional=ask-no # Use old-style PGP? (don't do it!)
>
> (I don't know what the default is.)
Hmm, this does seem to fix my problem and then some :) Lo
he standard ultimatum "Our way, or a ugly
hack" :)
Terje
--
Terje Elde | Yes Interactive AS | voice: +47 64 85 52 00
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.yes.no/ | fax: +47 64 85 52 01
PGP signature
* Ralf Hildebrandt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000403 12:26]:
> See http://www.mutt.org/doc/manual/manual-6.html#ss6.3
> there's no variable "from".
Sure there is, cut'n'paster from my muttrc:
set from = "Terje Elde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
It's in the d
phrase, and software crypto, but use a
> smart card with biometric user authentication for all the
> public-key crypto.
Smard cards get broken.
Anyways, I do get your point, but mine is simply that while we cannot get
perfect security, why not improve on at least the things that are easy to
a
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000330 13:06]:
> I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid program called
> muttpgphelper, say, and gives the passphrase to this program. When
> mutt wants to invoke gnupg it sends a request down a pipe to
> muttpgphelper which then invokes
y times the passphrase has been read from gnupgd, and you can thus set
of all sorta of alarms and uglyness should there have been a read mutt didn't
want.
Just my $0.02.
Terje Elde
--
PGP @ http://www.elde.org0xBC26460D 0xE16020ED
55BE 4633 6DAD 1CE6 0C58 544A F072 E02E BC26 460D
PGP signature
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
>
> This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
> communication somew
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> While this may sound nice in theory, I really don't want
> to maintain a program of the size of mutt running setuid
> root. You are free to fork off a version which does this.
>
> (I.e., we can stop this discussion.)
Sorry for violating th
* Gero Treuner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> Gnupg uses a different packet format when the message is both signed and
> encryypted which PGP2 doesn't understand. Gnupg's design doesn't allow
> to put a signature before the data. I saw a note in the gnupgp mailing
> list that it is not plan
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 13:54]:
> On 2000-03-28 09:28:48 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> >> [-- application/pgp is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]
>
> > What you are trying to view is a PGP/Mime message.
>
> no. It
* Lars Hecking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 12:31]:
> Just like gpg, mutt could make use of mlock() where available.
> It doesn't require root privileges on all systems.
And on those systems where it does need root, I say the best thing is to give
the choice to the user.
Terje
--
Tuj uh yaau f
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 10:52]:
> However, a copy of the passphrase may still be left in your swap
> partition. (I think that only a process running as root can prevent
> memory from being written to swap, and even then only on some systems.
> If this is incorrect, perha
* Jon Walthour ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 08:59]:
> Okay. Stupid user question time. I say this because I'm sure the answer
> is something simple like "install this" or "set that" or something like
> that ... or worse yet, RTFM. I just can't figure it out. So, here goes:
>
> Every now and then,
* Lars Hecking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000327 08:22]:
> Terje Elde writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've got a rather nice PGP setup with mutt, using the gpg-2comp prog as shown
> > in the examples (1.1.9i IIRC), however when I'm trying to encrypt to RSA keys,
&
Hi all,
I've got a rather nice PGP setup with mutt, using the gpg-2comp prog as shown
in the examples (1.1.9i IIRC), however when I'm trying to encrypt to RSA keys,
I get the following:
gpg: writing to `-'
gpg: DSA signature from: BC26460D Terje Elde (work) <[EMAIL PROTECTED
* Mikko Hänninen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000317 09:11]:
> Terje Elde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 16 Mar 2000:
> > The problem is that what I need is more or less to enable the send-hook
> > matching only if I'm in a spesific folder, or writing a email from a
>
who
I'm sending to, but my problem is much bigger than this. If it had been as
simple as this I'd RTFM my way to it.
The problem is that what I need is more or less to enable the send-hook
matching only if I'm in a spesific folder, or writing a email from a
spesific address.
All oth
Hi all,
Being a employee of a Norwegian company I'm forced to have three different
signature files. One for my personal mail, one when I'm writing company
mail to a Norwegian email address, and one for all other business related
emails.
Hunting out business related email is easy at the start, bu
ader, to set it to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], as well as add the appropriate CC to the mail gets
to the others on the list as well.
Is there a magic trick that will allow mutt to automatically dump in the Cc:
and From: headers when I reply to mails on this list?
Thanks,
Terje Elde
--
Xlehveh rhkau fudwuh
:54]:
> So, I guess I have two questions:
> 1) what can be done to improve upon the situation, and
Fix the broken MTA's and MUA's.
> 2) if anyone else has had similar problems to mine, how did they get
> around them?
I started not signing my messages to Eudora users, and the
ault
email to be [EMAIL PROTECTED], which I've solved by setting
my_hdr From: Terje Elde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's not normally a problem, but what happens when I want that for my
default email, but I want [EMAIL PROTECTED] when I reply to emails sent to
that addr? Normally my_hdr over
* Christopher Uy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000130 01:25]:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:19:48PM +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
> >
> > I'm really tired, but unless I've misunderstood something, you wanted:
> >
>
> I was too literal with my writing. :-) I indented th
at Jan 29 23:15:10 2000 CET using DSA key ID 81FFA954
gpg: Good signature from "Terje Elde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: aka "Terje Elde (1st backup email) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: aka "Terje Elde (2nd backup email) <[
e that the bug is somewhere in the mbox specific
code. Both procmail and mutt support maildirs tho, so I don't really see
any reason not to use them.
Terje Elde
--
Xlehveh rhkau fudwuh få mydtemi dåh tk aqd rhkau jyt få kdyn (jyt ==
fudwuh?)
PGP signature
ts to make it easy for developers on non-linux boxes to join,
then it would be an idea to make the prepare script use gmake if
available, and make if not.
Not much of an issue tho, as it's only used for cvs versions.
Terje Elde
--
Xlehveh rhkau fudwuh få mydtemi dåh tk aqd rhkau jyt få kdyn (jyt
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000128 14:38]:
> Terje Elde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > That shouldn't happen. You may wish to try the unstable branch
> > > which should stabilize Really Soon Now.
> >
> > I take it you're referr
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000128 12:51]:
> On 2000-01-28 11:05:25 +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> > Yes, but do you have the problem that only 10% of your keys seem
> > to be recognised by mutt?
>
> That shouldn't happen. You may wish to try the u
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000128 10:56]:
> On 2000-01-28 09:59:17 +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> >> First of all, it may quite well be possible that there is a
> >> unique key matching an e-mail address with a fully valid user
> >> id to key associ
I communicate with using PGP belong to the 5% of PGP
> users having RSA keys.
>
> (For the rest, I keep copies of pgp5 and gpg around.)
Sounds good.
Terje Elde
--
Xlehveh rhkau fudwuh få mydtemi dåh tk aqd rhkau jyt få kdyn (jyt ==
fudwuh?)
> amounts of validity information are calculated each time the program
> is asked for it.
>
> (BTW, I'm using a Pentium 100, there are 917 keys in my PGP public
> key ring, and things work quite nicely with PGP 2.6. And yes, the
> web of trust does work for me.)
How about
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000127 18:54]:
> On 2000-01-27 12:04:49 +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> > Anyways, same problem with gpg. I've got 457 keys, and I only get
> > about 60 listed. This after a wait of about 5 minutes or so. I
> > timed gpg when gett
ap.sh would be (if it weren't commented out).
Probably a script to rewrite pgp 2.x commands into gpg ones.
> Does this have anything to do with keyservers?
Yes, it has everything to do with them.
Terje Elde
--
Xlehveh rhkau fudwuh få mydtemi dåh tk aqd rhkau jyt få kdyn (jyt ==
fudwuh?)
. I timed gpg when
getting a listing of all the keys, and it took about 2 secs. IIRC mutt is
supposed to parse the PGP files internally, is it time that's changed??
Terje Elde
--
Y oek muhu qrbu je rhuqa jxyi, ixekbt oek dej qbie kdtuhijqdt jxu duut veh
iuskhyjo? Ex, mqyj... Jxqj ckij ru m
35 matches
Mail list logo
