On 18/02/18 20:45, Ray Satiro via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I know for xxx.sig
> files it would strip that extension and then "gpg: assuming signed data
> in xxx"
I'd like to suggest you shouldn't do it anyway. If somebody supplies you a
non-detached signed file with just a subtly different name, the
I downloaded an Ubuntu preview ISO [1] recently along with its hash and
signature, SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.gpg. I expected to be able to do this:
gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.gpg
gpg: no signed data
gpg: can't hash datafile: No data
Instead I have to do this:
gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.gpg SHA256SUMS
On 18/02/18 00:06, helices wrote:
> I will probably never understand why wanting to run the most current
> version of gnupg on a plethora of servers is controversial.
I don't think it is. I'm sorry your question didn't get answered
satisfactorily; that's just how things can go on community
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 08:47:29AM -0800, Lou Wynn wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 02:28 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
> > It seems to me, though, that the idea was to provide a means for the
> > company to repudiate an employee's key even if the employee was no
> > longer available.
>
> This is just one of the
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:36:28AM +0800, Genghuang Wang wrote:
> Hello, everybody as the Gnupg user
Well, Robert made an excellent point in his response and, indeed, it
is a point of view I share.
However, I felt in need of a laugh, so I at least had a look at this
thing and I certainly did get
On Thu 2018-02-15 21:33:05 +0100, Juergen Christoffel wrote:
> I'm looking for best practice tips for offline usage of GnuPG. What Do I
> mean by offline usage? I plan to encrypt backups or files on my machines
> with GnuPG and generate weekly or monthly keys for that purpose so backups
> for
