Re: encrypt the sent folder
Todd Zullinger wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: Surely there must be a better way. These all require admin access to the IMAP server. The software already does what I want some of the time (when I send the recipient encrypted email). I just want it to do it all the time. This doesn't like an entirely unreasonable feature request to make of Enigmail. Perhaps you'd want to check in with the Enigmail folks to see if the would consider adding such a feature? It has some potential to be useful but it might be icky to implement. Sounds unreasonable to me. It's completely beyond our scope to implement. Why is this unreasonable? You are asking an extension with hooks in certain steps of a MUA (Thunderbird/Seamonkey) to set policy on an IMAP server out of our control. Enigmail gets the message after the user clicks 'Send', does its processing, and passes the result back to the Mozilla mail-news code for mailing and storage. The extension has no control or interest in how the user has configured the MUA to handle sent items. In both the IMAP case and the local storage case, the message that is saved is the exact message that is sent on the wire. This is not an Enigmail function, but a function of the mail agent. There is no provision for processing a message on multiple paths and specifying separate handling on each path when sending, nor would it be reasonable to expect there to be. There are two RFEs filed in Bugzilla to allow the unencrypted storage of encrypted items. One applies to sent items, the other to received ones. These may be possible at some time in the future, but no one is making any promises. -- John P. Clizbe Inet: John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. PGP/GPG KeyID: 0x608D2A10/0x18BB373A what's the key to success?/ two words: good decisions. what's the key to good decisions? / one word: experience. how do i get experience? / two words: bad decisions. Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
John Clizbe wrote: [snip] There is no provision for processing a message on multiple paths and specifying separate handling on each path when sending, nor would it be reasonable to expect there to be. Ahh, this is the problem. There are two RFEs filed in Bugzilla to allow the unencrypted storage of encrypted items. One applies to sent items, the other to received ones. These may be possible at some time in the future, but no one is making any promises. Should I open another RFE? These are all the same problem after all. And thank you for the explanation. -- Eray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
John Clizbe wrote: Sounds unreasonable to me. It's completely beyond our scope to implement. That seems more like not feasible than unreasonable. But the results are the same. :-) Thank you for the explanation. -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -- Alexis De Tocqueville. pgpnGAm8vs6jh.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
Eray Aslan wrote: I thought it was a mis-configuration on my part. Nope. As John pointed out this is simply not feasible to do from within Enigmail based on the way it has to interact with Thunderbird. If you don't trust the IMAP server admins, then you should store your mail somewhere you do trust. Nope. I am the admin. I'll assume that means you trust you. ;-) If you are worried about someone cracking the server and getting at your sent messages then encryption on the server may be sufficient, but would involve either changes to you mail client or some other sort of access to your mailbox on the server. The servers in question already has encryption at the file system level with cryptsetupLUKS for Linux and truecrypt for windows boxes. But the trouble is these do not provide any defense against attacks through the network. They will happily serve the emails thru the network to the appropriate user when asked. FS encryption is only good at boot time. Once the partition is mounted, you can access the data. True. An encrypted FS that's always mounted isn't too secure. I can give the end users a smartcard or a usb stick. The objective is to provide a solution so that not even the admin can read the emails Well, as I understand your original query, you're looking to get security on the sent messages that are not encrypted to the recipient. In that case, the message goes out via IMAP and SMTP on the server and thus the admin could just grab a copy somewhere in that process. That'd be a lot easier to do than trying to crack the gpg encrypted message in your sent mailbox. ISTM that the only good way for you to get the security you want in this case is to send the mail encrypted in the first place. -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == Rupert! I told you to watch the bags! You were watching the boys again weren't you! -- Stewie Griffin pgprVzBoQm0pY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Eray Aslan wrote: Please tell if there is an alternative. Your best alternative at this point is to hire a professional information security consultant. Your needs are highly specialized. That means that nobody here can give you good advice on what to do, since none of us here are fully briefed on your infrastructure, your operations, your business, your threats, or any of the other dozens of things that go into a risk management plan. You're also going to need to address problems with public-key infrastructure if you want to deploy this for your employees. PKI is the big elephant in the middle of the room that nobody talks about; existing PKI designs are, speaking generally, absolutely terrible. Deploying PKI is something you'll want a specialist for. GnuPG is a tool. It is not a solution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJFdqYEAAoJELcA9IL+r4EJes4IAKE+PHVnY3actxoElF1QB0iR qH5iiRsLM7Dw9zCLSaLoujWOyzVMLF0N0lBXx88bB4MS8kj16daBgbCs7paasyyy qAPER++Ra6ahIrmsWHERdmWJfhuqGab0o4f8jTyIZcBlfxJH+QMPp/b6mjek2XxU U8z//4EFaCVPAzX+HvAEl/Mo6EJ0O+8E0y7G9X0lnWO4caB8BUjMtXtb4nxAZPz7 U2qOfyBEpTHtyPG/u8dLWFokl6nX9GQhfVHCmWhjSNMrmlxtPmTHn68ycA33z8Ah L/6FWTzmg7Shd/XLg2TFWA0BrxE/7kmxf/FMTHYE8RIRM2KE0Gf8JTmut8utlvI= =TySs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
Robert J. Hansen wrote: Your best alternative at this point is to hire a professional information security consultant. [snip] I'll fight for the budget but it's not likely. Thanks anyway. -- Eray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
using belgium EID with gnupg 2.0.1
hello all ,
i'm trying to import my belgium eID card but it only imports the belgium Root CA
this is the output i get
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/.gnupg gpgsm --learn-card
gpgsm[6605]: can't connect to `/tmp/gpg-GXgusb/S.gpg-agent': No such file or
directory
gpgsm: can't connect to the agent - trying fall back
gpgsm[6605]: can't connect to `/home/luc/.gnupg/S.gpg-agent': No such file or
directory
gpgsm: no running gpg-agent - starting one
gpgsm: DBG: connection to agent established
gpgsm: issuer certificate {C2EAD603ED8E2ED59FA26D27D21E3826FC8024AC} not found
using authorityKeyIdentifier
gpgsm: issuer certificate (#/2.5.4.5=#323030363033,CN=Citizen CA,C=BE) not found
gpgsm: issuer certificate missing - storing as ephemeral
gpgsm: issuer certificate {C2EAD603ED8E2ED59FA26D27D21E3826FC8024AC} not found
using authorityKeyIdentifier
gpgsm: issuer certificate (#/2.5.4.5=#323030363033,CN=Citizen CA,C=BE) not found
gpgsm: issuer certificate missing - storing as ephemeral
gpgsm: issuer certificate {10F00C569B61EA573AB635976D9FDDB9148EDBE6} not found
using authorityKeyIdentifier
gpgsm: issuer certificate (#/CN=Belgium Root CA,C=BE) not found
gpgsm: issuer certificate missing - storing as ephemeral
gpgsm: certificate imported
secmem usage: 0/16384 bytes in 0 blocks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/.gnupg gpgsm --list-keys
/home/luc/.gnupg/pubring.kbx
Serial number: 580B056C5324DBB25057185FF9E5A650
Issuer: /CN=Belgium Root CA/C=BE
Subject: /CN=Belgium Root CA/C=BE
validity: 2003-01-26 23:00:00 through 2014-01-26 23:00:00
key type: 2048 bit RSA
key usage: certSign crlSign
policies: 2.16.56.1.1.1:N:
chain length: unlimited
fingerprint: DF:DF:AC:89:47:BD:F7:52:64:A9:23:3A:C1:0E:E3:D1:28:33:DA:CC
if have the following gpg-agent.conf
# GPGConf disabled this option here at Wed 06 Dec 2006 10:14:02 AM CET
# allow-mark-trusted
###+++--- GPGConf ---+++###
ignore-cache-for-signing
allow-mark-trusted
debug-level basic
log-file socket:///home/luc/.gnupg/log-socket
###+++--- GPGConf ---+++### Wed 06 Dec 2006 10:51:20 AM CET
# GPGConf edited this configuration file.
# It will disable options before this marked block, but it will
# never change anything below these lines.
but for some reason it doesn't trust the root and citizen CA. I also didn't got
a question to trust the
CA certificates ?
How can i fix this ?
Also , the current scdaemon fails most of the time with my acr38 card reader.
i'm using the pcsc driver
but most of the time i get Card errors. The card works fine with firefox and
thunderbird which uses the belgium pkcs11 library
greetings,
luc
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
John Clizbe wrote: Eray Aslan wrote: The servers in question already have encryption at the file system level with cryptsetupLUKS for Linux and truecrypt for windows boxes. But the trouble is these do not provide any defense against attacks through the network. They will happily serve the emails thru the network to the appropriate user when asked. FS encryption is only good at boot time. Once the partition is mounted, you can access the data. Once again, this would appear to be a server configuration issue, not a GnuPG issue. I think I am not expressing myself clearly. If it is possible for someone to easily spoof a user's credentials and access their emails, then it's an authentication issue. No, see below. If you're worried about eavesdropping on the wire, you want SSL or TLS to secure the link. In the case given of IMAP, you want IMAP + TLS or IMAP + SSL We provide IMAP+SSL and POP3+SSL email access to our employees. Plain IMAP and POP3 is not provided. SMTP is also secured. We also provide webmail service secured with HTTPS. Again plain HTTP is not allowed. This is basic stuff. So eavesdropping on the wire is not my main concern. And mails are stored on IMAP servers with encrypted file systems. This is not an authentiation issue because you can change the authentication method at the server. I want the emails to stay encrypted even if the server is compromised. I don't want anyone with the root password to say that is what you wrote 2 months ago unless he has my secret key. And that is what GnuPG does, no? And since all our email accounts are virtual - meaning thay don't have a shell account, dont have a home directory and emails are stored under the same UID at the server - I have to solve this at the MUA level. Please tell if there is an alternative. -- Eray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Christmas is upon us again.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA224 Was Tue, 05 Dec 2006, at 16:06:56 -0600, when Robert J. Hansen wrote: Whether you're secular or religious, atheist or devout, I think we can all agree that the time of the year known as Christmas will soon be upon us. This is historically a time for personal reflection and charitable giving. We reflect on how fortunate we are, and we give in order to show our thanks and appreciation for that which we have received. This year, I'm grateful that we have a Free Software implementation of the OpenPGP protocol. I'm also grateful that the development process is fairly open and I'm grateful that, by and large, the people in the community are friendly. This year, I'm giving $10 to the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) in the name of the GNU Privacy Guard, as my way of telling the developers thanks. If you feel like joining me in this, well... feel free to say thanks on-list, or to write off a note to the developers. Likewise, I hope you'll give a small donation to the charity of your choice in the name of the GNU Privacy Guard. Merry Christmas to everyone. May we have peace on Earth and goodwill to all humanity. * I thank you warmly and as a Buddhist wish you (all) Happy Tibetan New Year.[1] The speech is of very loving-kindness nature and is spreading characteristic velvet and silky atmosphere we all need (at least once in a year). I hope that Miss GnuGP Universe contest will be established at some time also, because it is very good idea. Ten US dollars sound good too, so I will be willing to donate as well, in this or other way, to FSF, as soon as Mr Richard Stallman stops his support for legalization of ga...marijuana and/or any soft drugs, or at least removes this from his web site. I wish also to GnuPG to remain good, free (as in freedom), independent and nonrestricted software as long as possible, and to its related team(s) a good, reliable, stable, vital and quality organizational (cap)abilities. __ [1] I also wish Happy International, Serbian, Chinese and Japanese New Year and Merry Orthodox Christmas, since I am coming from this cultural and spiritual milieu too. - -- Mica ~~~ For personal mail please use my address as it is *exactly* given in my From field, otherwise it will not reach me. ~~~ GPG keys/docs/software at: http://blueness.port5.com/pgpkeys/ http://tronogi.tripod.com/pgp/pgpkeys/ checking whether the reason is present and sane... piggy, piggy! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6-svn-4298 o tiger192 (Cygwin/MinGW32) iQCZAwUBRXa+WAYWnlFQ1cE7AQunhAQcC6oxzOXmX4msGVUkRr8UsEAoAu4F9sCE twBpxaEF6F5ikm7aEo+kBN2iy2jUM2n5dTA6VfgK6lwF8bhoSZfMl12pFXPg9f5N ejFx0OTk8AR7xr6T2w1G9a6aIfIzrLC7uv+5iuQTyyMNGngbTZ63TddJqnm27Xb2 mRXPuupeklLe3j7Z =DCDv -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Christmas is upon us again.
Randy Burns wrote the following on 12/5/06 9:01 PM: It's a great idea. A more direct link is: https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/donate Randy --- Robert J. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This year, I'm giving $10 to the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) in the name of the GNU Privacy Guard, as my way of telling the developers thanks. If you feel like joining me in this, well... feel free to say thanks on-list, or to write off a note to the developers. Likewise, I hope you'll give a small donation to the charity of your choice in the name of the GNU Privacy Guard. Kudos to Robert for the initiative. Donation sent via the above link (thanks Randy). Thanks, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and a Happy New Year to http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/misc/thanks.html Charly ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Expectk and echo from GnuPG ---edit-key Command
Hi, I'm scripting a Tcl/Tk frontend using Expect extension. It's all right up to GnuPG 1.4.2. With GnuPG 1.4.5, the spawned process from tcl script (spawn gpg --no-use-agent --edit-key 0x12345678) echoes back character by character everything is sent to gpg. So my tcl script receive back a mix of data from and to gpg. Tcl sends delsig It received: Command d Command de Command del Command dels Command delsi Command delsig Command and not Command prompt only. Why is 1.4.5 behaviour different from 1.4.2 ? Is it possible to avoid this echoing precluding use of Expect for key edition ? I'm a Linux rookie. Thanks for your help. Alain. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Re: Christmas is upon us again.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yes, I will join in too and donate to the FSF, as a strong supporter of enabling *free speech* (GnuPG and other crypto/anonimity products), and free software in general. Peter. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRXcVFfqr/97I5g4/AQIoPwP/eVBXF0X4nKkS8Vh4SG3yq87aKuyJRbxh Ks/grhOA2h9b+NYLeI2sREunVl32Q5zXIck6qlar4isSPPKcxiD8jWQO9IHeKb6D AaCI74ogFUC6d8QTIKv1tgfuCme6WWiZ3FpqO5AbtSTvyJWRDWg62/AkI7twK4W1 HPiSGuPYm84= =RFRL -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder (Eray Aslan)
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:59:14 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Send Gnupg-users mailing list submissions to gnupg-users@gnupg.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at Message: 1 Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 12:52:14 +0200 From: Eray Aslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] We provide IMAP+SSL and POP3+SSL email access to our employees. Plain IMAP and POP3 is not provided. SMTP is also secured. We also provide webmail service secured with HTTPS. Again plain HTTP is not allowed. This is basic stuff. So eavesdropping on the wire is not my main concern. And mails are stored on IMAP servers with encrypted file systems. This is not an authentiation issue because you can change the authentication method at the server. I want the emails to stay encrypted even if the server is compromised. I don't want anyone with the root password to say that is what you wrote 2 months ago unless he has my secret key. And that is what GnuPG does, no? And since all our email accounts are virtual - meaning thay don't have a shell account, dont have a home directory and emails are stored under the same UID at the server - I have to solve this at the MUA level. Please tell if there is an alternative. at the risk of sounding simplistic, maybe there is not too difficult workaround: [1] make it an option to save mail that is sent, and make the default as 'not' saving it [2]those wishing to have their sent mail stored encrypted, can forward the sent mail to to self, (as this is not usually done, it must be implemented to 'allow' it, but that shouldn't be that hard to do), and encrypt the forwarded mail with the sender's default key [3] add something in the subject line like: 'forwarded mail of 'date', encrypted' [4] add a disclaimer that users choosing to save mail in the 'sent' folder without encrypting it, will have it stored as cleartext on the server this keeps the users informed, gives them a choice, allows them to be protected (and does so by default) and protects the provider vedaal Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Compile of Gnupg 2.0.1 failed - no libintl
Peter Stoddard wrote: Hi folks I tried compiling Gnupg 2.0.1 on a 733 MHz PowerPC G4 running Mac OSX 10.4.8 and the make failed with the following error: In file included from sysutils.c:41: i18n.h:27:23: error: libintl.h: No such file or directory sysutils.c: In function 'disable_core_dumps': sysutils.c:88: warning: implicit declaration of function 'gettext' sysutils.c:88: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'gettext' make[2]: *** [libcommon_a-sysutils.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 I looked libintl up and it involves native language support. Is this really necessary to ild Gnupg 2.x? If so, is there source code somewhere I can download? Try adding --disable-nls to your configure command. Also try doing './configure --help | more' to see if there is anything else there that is relevant, but only change things if you're pretty sure you know what's going to happen if you do. :) Doug -- If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
Todd Zullinger wrote: That seems more like not feasible than unreasonable. But the results are the same. :-) Infeasible: we have the manpower, we have the tools, we have the talent, but the architecture is working against us in a big way. Unreasonable: our manpower is stretched so thin that all infeasible RFEs are unreasonable expectations of us. As is unfortunately common with open-source projects, there's a major lack of manpower on Enigmail. If you know Javascript and would like to get your hands dirty with Enigmail, why not volunteer over on the Enigmail list? :) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Compile of Gnupg 2.0.1 failed - no libintl
On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Doug Barton wrote: Peter Stoddard wrote: Hi folks I tried compiling Gnupg 2.0.1 on a 733 MHz PowerPC G4 running Mac OSX 10.4.8 and the make failed with the following error: In file included from sysutils.c:41: i18n.h:27:23: error: libintl.h: No such file or directory sysutils.c: In function 'disable_core_dumps': sysutils.c:88: warning: implicit declaration of function 'gettext' sysutils.c:88: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'gettext' make[2]: *** [libcommon_a-sysutils.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 I looked libintl up and it involves native language support. Is this really necessary to ild Gnupg 2.x? If so, is there source code somewhere I can download? Try adding --disable-nls to your configure command. Also try doing './configure --help | more' to see if there is anything else there that is relevant, but only change things if you're pretty sure you know what's going to happen if you do. :) Thanks for the suggestion Doug. I tried configure --disable-nls, and I got further in the make but it eventually failed with the following error: /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: _libiconv _libiconv_close _libiconv_open collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [kbxutil] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2 I don't know what other configuration options to try, and I don't understand what *any* of them do, so I'm going to bag gnupg 2.0.1 and wait until I can find out what is going on, or maybe wait for a macosx binary. I'm running 1.4.5 and its working fine for me. Pete -- Peter Stoddard -- GPG Key 4A1F5DA0 -- Peter Stoddard -- GPG Key 4A1F5DA0 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: encrypt the sent folder
Robert J. Hansen wrote: Todd Zullinger wrote: That seems more like not feasible than unreasonable. But the results are the same. :-) Infeasible: we have the manpower, we have the tools, we have the talent, but the architecture is working against us in a big way. Unreasonable: our manpower is stretched so thin that all infeasible RFEs are unreasonable expectations of us. I suppose that's one way to define the terms. I was thinking that unreasonable would be more aptly applied to a request that wasn't grounded in any good reasoning. Not feasible could be applied for either lack of manpower or lack of an available set of hooks to achieve the goal. As is unfortunately common with open-source projects, there's a major lack of manpower on Enigmail. If you know Javascript and would like to get your hands dirty with Enigmail, why not volunteer over on the Enigmail list? :) While I think that the Enigmail team has done a really great job of integrating OpenPGP into Thunderbird[1], I'm a happy Mutt user and not looking to switch back to any graphical MUA. ;-) I sincerely appreciate the efforts of all those folks that create the tools so many of us use, from the kernel hackers working on low level drivers for obscure funtions I will likely never understand, to David, Werner, Timo and all the GnuPG developers/contributors, to Ingo, John, Patrick and others who spend hours integrating those pieces into easy to use graphical interfaces that I can teach a friend to use pretty quickly. [1] For Windows, Thunderbird with Enigmail is the only thing I'd recommend to friends getting started. For linux, it's either Thunderbird/Enigmail or Kmail. Both projects have done a lot to make using PGP both seemless and secure. -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken -- Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) pgpzF1I6pZfTk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Info doc conflict between 1.4.6 and 2.0.1?
I was updating my system to 1.4.6 today and noticed the following in the make install output (I've got 2.0.1 installed already): install-info: menu item `gpg' already exists, for file `gnupg' I don't recall seeing this before, but I don't use the info docs much, so maybe I've just missed it previously. It seems that 1.4.6 changed the texinfo file to use the dircategory GNU Utilities just as 2.0.1 does. 1.4.5 used GnuPG. Without knowing much about how install-info works, I'm guessing that it's balking because both programs try to create a gpg entry in the same info section. If I'm looking to install both 1.4.6 and 2.0.1 simultaneously, shouldn't the info pages for both versions be able to coexist? If I'm doing something wrong or am incorrect in expecting that the info files should be parallel installable, let me know. If not, would a proper fix be to use gpg2 as the entry for 2.0.1? -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority. -- Joseph Addison pgpzKcvT8nwVM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Info doc conflict between 1.4.6 and 2.0.1?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Todd Zullinger wrote the following on 12/6/06 11:37 PM: I was updating my system to 1.4.6 today and noticed the following in the make install output (I've got 2.0.1 installed already): install-info: menu item `gpg' already exists, for file `gnupg' I don't recall seeing this before, but I don't use the info docs much, so maybe I've just missed it previously. It seems that 1.4.6 changed the texinfo file to use the dircategory GNU Utilities just as 2.0.1 does. 1.4.5 used GnuPG. Without knowing much about how install-info works, I'm guessing that it's balking because both programs try to create a gpg entry in the same info section. If I'm looking to install both 1.4.6 and 2.0.1 simultaneously, shouldn't the info pages for both versions be able to coexist? If I'm doing something wrong or am incorrect in expecting that the info files should be parallel installable, let me know. If not, would a proper fix be to use gpg2 as the entry for 2.0.1? I am MacOS X user (10.4.6), unable till now to compile 2.0.1 (posted a few messages explaining why). If you are MacOS X user, could you please explain how you succeeded to compile 2.0.1. Thanks. I had no problem compiling 1.4.6 (and all its predecessors) from source. Charly KeyOnCard at: http://homepage.mac.com/shavital/iblog/B788933981/C1591872826/E20061125110933/index.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: GnuPG for Privacy Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRXehaSRJoUyU/RYhAQKz2gQAgNde+O79/HZW/5tiwb4Ci7g56wMo5gyC UAFnrVvJeB+u6YjHSOxqEN+R8ik6sEdDloDrPNDUOzyXaibbno7gIE8Xv6JvoF7E wHU7lYY6jzImUiR5x/+Ic+utXJgqwGpPiJy9folzByn2rieFXHFNlitN4uJYGQNZ W+xXerzuX7E= =jvRB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Info doc conflict between 1.4.6 and 2.0.1?
Charly Avital wrote: I am MacOS X user (10.4.6), unable till now to compile 2.0.1 (posted a few messages explaining why). If you are MacOS X user, could you please explain how you succeeded to compile 2.0.1. Thanks. Sorry, I'm using linux. -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp == It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome K. Jerome pgpeT7d3729pq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
