On 13/03/11 6:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
Whatever you do with user IDs is optional, since they are just a
free-text field. And of course a user wanting to make their key
match more searches could include extra UIDs with additional
hashes. For example John Smith john.smith...@example.com could
On 13/03/11 5:32 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
Ben McGinnes wrote:
Thanks. I think I might have to play around with installing a local
server. I don't have a big enough link to run a public server, but
running a local one would probably serve as an interesting exercise.
I think that's my
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated method.
[citation required]
--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o . . o o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Saturday 12 March 2011 at 11:06:14 PM, in
mid:4d7bfc66.3040...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If nobody's looking for people's email addresses, then
there's no need to not publish email addresses.
That assumes that there is no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:48:55 AM, in
mid:4d7c5ac7.70...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
I think you're assuming a level of innate understanding
of what can be done with every part of a UID by every
user when they create a key. This
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a deprecated method.
[citation required]
See
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 7:58:36 AM, in
mid:4d7c792c.2000...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
So, my question, how would you enable a user to display
those keys with known names or identities without
searching for a specific key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 12:56:53 PM, in
mid:20110313125653.03671...@abydos.stargate.org.uk, Brad Rogers
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600 Aaron Toponce
aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry
On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly formatting
e-mail messages thereby forcing the use of a
On 3/13/2011 8:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
If nobody's looking for people's email addresses, then
there's no need to not publish email addresses.
That assumes that there is no need to obscure a piece of information
unless it is known that somebody is actively looking for the
information. In my
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:19:58 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com articulated:
On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM, Jerry wrote:
Actually, it is a
On 03/13/2011 08:57 AM, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved e‑mail
program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and protection
against phishing messages.
Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
available for quite
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:21:36 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
I'm just trying to figure out why people keep saying inline signatures
are deprecated, when no documented evidence has come forth showing the
Ah, I did indeed misunderstand what was intended.
I first
On 13/03/11 10:42 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 16:21:43 +1100
Ben McGinnes b...@adversary.org articulated:
Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
world.
Actually, it is a fine example of users/MUAs not correctly
formatting e-mail messages thereby
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 10:57:16 -0400
Jerry gnupg.u...@seibercom.net wrote:
Hello Jerry,
Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
That's my fault. A misunderstanding of what was being asked for.
--
Regards _
/ ) The blindingly obvious is
/
On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved e‑mail
program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and protection
against phishing messages.
Why are we even discussing a product that in not and has not been
available for quite some
On 14/03/11 12:32 AM, MFPA wrote:
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:48:55 AM, in
mid:4d7c5ac7.70...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
I'm assuming a short descriptive paragraph in the gpg.man file plus
some good info becoming available over time in various start up
guides etc. by searching the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 3:54:28 PM, in
mid:4d7ce8b4.5090...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
Also, let's not continue the in-line is deprecated
argument, just because PGP/MIME may be better
(personally I agree that it is better).
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 2:47:23 PM, in
mid:4d7cd8fb.7090...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 3/13/2011 8:37 AM, MFPA wrote:
of information unless it is known that somebody is
actively looking for the information. In my
On 14/03/11 1:12 AM, MFPA wrote:
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 7:58:36 AM, in
mid:4d7c792c.2000...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
So, my question, how would you enable a user to display those keys
with known names or identities without searching for a specific key
belonging to a particular
On Sunday 13 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 13/03/11 7:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
Or simply use pgp-inline so that the disclaimer comes after the
signature.
Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
world.
I disagree. This very mailing list demonstrates how to add a
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:37:17 -0700
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us articulated:
On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved
e‑mail program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering and
protection against phishing messages.
Why
On 14/03/11 5:19 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
On Sunday 13 March 2011, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 13/03/11 7:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
Or simply use pgp-inline so that the disclaimer comes after the
signature.
Yes, this is a fine example of why in-line still has a place in the
world.
I disagree. This
On 03/13/2011 10:57 AM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 08:19:58 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com articulated:
On 03/13/2011 06:56 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 06:05:12 -0600
Aaron Toponce aaron.topo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Aaron,
On 03/13/2011 05:42 AM,
On 3/13/2011 1:02 PM, Jerry wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:37:17 -0700 Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
articulated:
On 03/13/2011 07:57, Jerry wrote:
Outlook Express has been replaced by Windows Mail, an improved
e‑mail program with enhancements such as junk e‑mail filtering
and protection
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:02:52 PM, in
mid:4d7cf8bc.3060...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
Ah, I'm still using the 1.4.x branch, so I haven't seen
any of that.
Nor have I; it is just my understanding from descriptions and answers
to
On 14/03/11 11:44 AM, MFPA wrote:
On Sunday 13 March 2011 at 5:02:52 PM, in
mid:4d7cf8bc.3060...@adversary.org, Ben McGinnes wrote:
I'd hardly call it flashing lights just to be listed on the
keyserver, especially when the same data source also contains a
large amount of effectively useless
On 3/13/2011 4:02 PM, Jerry wrote:
So I am naive, then what are you? You CC'd me even though I
specifically stated that off-list replies are basically ignored. In
following with my basic procedure for unwanted e-mails like that, I
reported it as SPAM.
Well, it's not exactly unsolicited,
I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA? I know the latter has
undergone a ridiculous amount of scrutiny and is immensely popular. I
also know it
On 3/13/2011 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA?
There are probably only a couple of dozen mathematicians in the
On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Ely wrote:
I apologise in advance if this is a stupid question to ask now or if
people already asked it before I stepped on the scene, but which
algorithm is more secure: DSA and EL GAMAL or RSA? I know the latter has
undergone a ridiculous amount of
31 matches
Mail list logo
