Dear all,
I have GnuPG 1.4.11 left over from a former installation. Since I
upgraded to GnuPG 2.0.22 during the installation of GPG-Suite for Mac OS
(10. 8. 5 – Mountain Lion) I do not need the older version. Is it
possible to remove it without hurting my keyrings?
Thank you in advance for your
On 23/01/14 17:27, Werner Koch wrote:
is anyone interested in a BoF at FOSDEM on February 1 or 2? Anything
special to put on the agenda? How long should we plan 30, 45 or 60
minutes?
Sound like a good plan. My preference would be the 1st of February
around lunch.
Cheers,
arne
--
Arne
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:28, arne.renkema-pad...@cased.de said:
Sound like a good plan. My preference would be the 1st of February
around lunch.
Well, the BoF rooms are assigned on a first come first served base.
Thus we can't sign up for a certain time. I am fine with Saturday, but
better not
what are the factors involved in creating such discrepancies with folks'
public key lengths ?
i mean, some people's are 5 monitors high where as the other joe has
seemingly created a similar key and that key is one half a monitor in
'monitor' height
what does all this mean ?
how have people such
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:24 PM, shm...@riseup.net shm...@riseup.net wrote:
what are the factors involved in creating such discrepancies with folks'
public key lengths ?
As far as I can tell, the two major factors that affect the size of
public keys are:
1. Key length. (That is, a 4096-bit key
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:24:14 +1100
shm...@riseup.net shm...@riseup.net wrote:
what are the factors involved in creating such discrepancies with folks'
public key lengths ?
i mean, some people's are 5 monitors high where as the other joe has
seemingly created a similar key and that key is
On 24.01.2014, Leo Gaspard wrote:
Actually, this is something I never understood. Why should people create a
revocation certificate and store it in a safe place, instead of backing up the
main key?
Because a backup only makes sense when it's stored in a diffrent place
than the key itself:
On 1/24/2014 8:42 AM, Pete Stephenson wrote:
As far as I can tell, the two major factors that affect the size of
public keys are:
1. Key length. (That is, a 4096-bit key will be larger than a 2048-bit
or 1024-bit key.)
2. Number of signatures on the key. A brand-new key will be
considerably
Steve Jones:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:24:14 +1100 shm...@riseup.net
shm...@riseup.net wrote:
what are the factors involved in creating such discrepancies with
folks' public key lengths ?
i mean, some people's are 5 monitors high where as the other joe
has seemingly created a similar key
Pete Stephenson:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:24 PM, shm...@riseup.net shm...@riseup.net wrote:
what are the factors involved in creating such discrepancies with folks'
public key lengths ?
As far as I can tell, the two major factors that affect the size of
public keys are:
1. Key length.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:38:19PM -0800, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Well... I don't know how you type
With a nine-volt battery, a paperclip, and a USB cable that has only one end
-- the other is bare wires. You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to do
the initial handshake, but once you've
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 07:47:15AM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
[...]
the usefulness of revocation certificate, just the advice always popping
out to
generate a revocation certificate in any case, without thinking of whether
it
would be useful.
Okay, that is a different thing. I
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:15:40 -0500
Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
There are already systems that make use of the flexibility in this
field. For example SSH hosts can publish their RSA host key in an
OpenPGP certificate using the monkeysphere (i'm a contributor to the
I think it makes a lot of sense to be able to associate more things with
OpenPGP keys. I'm particularly interested in seeing OTR keys and XMPP
identities in OpenPGP keys.
.hc
On 01/23/2014 05:50 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
I've been thinking about UIDs in keys, rfc4880 section 5.1 says that by
On 24/01/14 13:03, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 23:28, arne.renkema-pad...@cased.de said:
Sound like a good plan. My preference would be the 1st of February
around lunch.
Well, the BoF rooms are assigned on a first come first served base.
Thus we can't sign up for a certain
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:14, arne.renkema-pad...@cased.de said:
My personal pet-problem is the usability of tools like GPG.
Okay, thus we have
- Report on current keyserver work [Kristian]
- Make GPG invisible to the user [Arne]
- ECC and GnuPG progress [Werner]
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
On 01/24/2014 12:48 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:15:40 -0500 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
http://web.monkeysphere.info/
This looks pretty cool, and does cover some of the things I've been
thinking about. I've been wondering about communications
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:16:28 -0500
Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
what do you mean complete connection security via OpenPGP? OpenPGP
is not a stream-based communications protocol, it's a specification
of a message format and a certificate format. Inventing a new
18 matches
Mail list logo
