I am pretty sure the answer to this question is no, but I thought I'd
ask just in case. I've attended a conference for the last 2 years where
there was a PGP key signing. Several of the people who signed my key
last year were present again this year, and sent me signatures again.
The
Hi all,
I signed a few keys recently using --edit-key and the 'trust' command,
which did not ask me how well I had verified the users identity, but
proceeded to generate a 'sig' signature on the keys. I've since found
out I now need to use the --ask-cert-level option to get this prompt.
As I did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/03/13 7:14 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
I am pretty sure the answer to this question is no, but I
thought I'd ask just in case. I've attended a conference for the
last 2 years where there was a PGP key signing. Several of the
people who signed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/01/2013 03:37 PM, Dav￭ Steinn Geirsson wrote:
| Hi all,
|
| I signed a few keys recently using --edit-key and the 'trust' command,
| which did not ask me how well I had verified the users identity, but
| proceeded to generate a 'sig'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/02/2013 01:20 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
| On 2/03/13 7:14 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
|
| I am pretty sure the answer to this question is no, but I
| thought I'd ask just in case. I've attended a conference for the
| last 2 years where there was a
Additionally, there exists PGP for z/OS from Symantec.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:04, gcal...@br.ibm.com said:
I have sent an email earlier requesting information about the best PGP
version to install in a zLinux server.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/03/13 8:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/02/2013 01:20 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
I can think of two reasons why there may be some value in
including the second signatures. The first being if you have
added a new UID to your key and the new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/03/13 3:04 AM, gcal...@br.ibm.com wrote:
Hello,
I have sent an email earlier requesting information about the best
PGP version to install in a zLinux server.
Please don't attempt to post to gnupg-annou...@gnupg.org. While your
messages
Am 01.03.2013 20:10, schrieb Branko Majic:
...
Now to see if there's any way of using the OpenPGP card through
PKCS#11 :)
Try the PKCS#11 framework OpenSC. It supports the OpenPGP Card (and
Crypto Stick) since version 0.13.
___
Gnupg-users mailing
On 3/2/13 11:06 AM, Anonymous wrote:
The installation problem takes care of the other. Hushmail users need
not know any more than yahoo users when opening an account. A HM user
may not even be aware that PGP is in play, or what PGP is.
At this point I'm giving up on this conversation. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 02-03-2013 5:14, Doug Barton escribió:
...
The signatures are from the same keys, same certification level,
everything. The only thing different is the date of the signature
(obviously).
So the question is, what value, if any, would there
On 02/25/2013 03:20 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
Where does this idea that a business case must be recognized by all
suppliers for an entire industry in a whole country before it works?
No one, but your statement seemed to be a severe overgeneralization.
You're the one that said
Figuring out how to install an app is not the problem. Figuring out
how to *use OpenPGP* is the problem. The app is not the same as the
amount of specialized knowledge required to use the app successfully.
The installation problem takes care of the other. Hushmail users need
not know any more
On Sat, 2 Mar 2013, Anonymous wrote:
. . .
It's really not a good time to attempt to prop these guys up, when
every economy in the world is suffering acutely from their colossal
and aggregate incompetence.
Not to mention the situations where available intelligence
was used to do various
14 matches
Mail list logo
