-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello, I have 50 or so keys I need to --lsign-key as quickly as
possible. Is there any way I can accomplish this in one foul swoop?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Hi,
just to let you know that I installed the SCM SCR333 card reader and it
worked out of the box. Seems to be a recommendable device if somebody is
looking for an internal card reader for a desktop computer.
Thanks,
Reinhard
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 14:27:03 Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:00:11AM +0200, Johannes Graumann wrote:
Hi all,
I have an issue with mail signatures in my mail setup and want to ask
whether anybody has experienced something similar and/or where to look
for a
Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
Speaking as a regular Joe, who can do very little cli stuff and just uses
Linux (e-mail, web surfing, and an rpg game) because it looks and performs
better than winblows and is safer, I'd simply just 'ask' what the difference
was if I was
I have been trying for the last 3-4 month to get GPG working on a company
website and just can not get GPG working - I set it up exactly to specs. I
can go to a dos prompt and encrypt any file with out problem, but when I try
to use any type of scripting - all I get is plain text from a form.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello, I want to move my keyring files from %appdata%/gnupg to R:/
You can either set
GNUPGHOME=R:/
or add/change the entry HomeDir in the registry under the key
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\GNU\GnuPG
Michel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
Hi there,
I have a very hard time trying to get a mail signature verified which was
created using a Thawte Freemail certificate. I'm using GPGME to access GPGSM.
The Problem appears to be not a new one:
http://archive.netbsd.se/?ml=gnupg-usersa=2007-07t=4770328
It says here, the certificate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Kinni wrote:
Hello, I have 50 or so keys I need to --lsign-key as quickly as
possible. Is there any way I can accomplish this in one foul swoop?
I suspect that You are doing this to stop the 'Warning Box appearing
when Encrypting to
Am Montag, 21. April 2008 10:45:06 schrieb Stephan Menzel:
I know, it sounds all a bit weird, but there must be a way to have Thawte's
Freemail signatures verified. Please let me know if I can provide any
further information.
Of course, there's one thing I can do. I can attach a sample.
This
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 GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Typically when a
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 GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
How about:
1.4 == GnuPG
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:30 -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote:
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion.
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
Chris-
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion. It would
be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
I imagine this idea would get a lot of pushback from 1.4 users. I know
that I'd be bothered by it.
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 08:59 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I imagine this idea would get a lot of pushback from 1.4 users. I know
that I'd be bothered by it.
What's the reason?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
What's the reason?
My reason, or the general reason?
The general reason... pick your poison, really. There are a lot of them.
1. The paranoids.
Read alt.security.pgp sometime and you'll find a bunch of people who are
in critical need of getting their
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:43 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
How about:
1.4 == GnuPG Classic
2.0 == GnuPG Plus
If both should continue to develop (on a long time view) why not:
1.4 == GnuPG Classic
2.0 == GnuPG
Chris.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:42,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion.
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
This will not happen. 1.4. builds on a wide variety of platforms
whereas 2.0 requires a decent POSIX or Windows
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:21 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If GnuPG 1.4.x suddenly gets marked deprecated and begins to be phased
out, a whole lot of people are going to start asking why? Official
word on the GnuPG list was that GnuPG 1.4 was still perfectly safe and
would be maintained
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 16:33 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
This will not happen. 1.4. builds on a wide variety of platforms
whereas 2.0 requires a decent POSIX or Windows platform.
I've already thought that...
Frankly, I do not see the problem. The BInd folks are running Bind 8
and Bind 9 for a
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Well I did not ask to mark it deprecated... it's also ok to maintain it
for some time (probably one or two years?).
You said to phase it out. The engineering term for that is
deprecation. When something is marked deprecated, that means it works
now but there
Quoting Matt Kinni [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello, I want to move my keyring files from %appdata%/gnupg to R:/
I know you can do this somehow, I just can't figure out how. Is there
something I can add to ggp.conf? Or is there an environment variable
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
. . .
- Set up some place (perhaps in the FAQ and even in the download area)
where you just say all that, namely: New features will probably go to
2.x, both will have the same security support, for the places where both
provide the same stuff
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:15:42 +0200
Stephan Menzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, there's one thing I can do. I can attach a sample.
This mail is signed with one of them vicious Thawte
Certificates. Is there a way to have it verified with or
without checking CRLs so validity is valid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I got it working, thanks John!
John Clizbe wrote:
| Matt Kinni wrote:
| Hello, I want to move my keyring files from %appdata%/gnupg to R:/
|
| I know you can do this somehow, I just can't figure out how. Is there
| something I can add to
John W. Moore III wrote:
Additionally, I have no use for the S/MIME capabilities contained within the
2.0.x Trunk.
Which is why I think the name GnuPG-Plus makes sense for 2.0.
2.0 is OpenPGP *plus* S/MIME
--
John P. Clizbe Inet: JPClizbe (a) tx DAWT rr DAHT con
Ginger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
I disagree! I much prefer using the 1.4.x Branch in static format
because it is faster, smaller and not dependent upon accessing so many
I think this is well appropriate in backend situation, however, GnuPG
intended for general users. I often advocate use of GnuPG, and OpenPGP
to people, and, from that experience, I think making this clear makes it
much easier for people to adopt it. (it won't be necessary showstopper
for them,
27 matches
Mail list logo
