On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:51, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
securely. Exposing the UID validity is a step toward making the trust
model calculations more visible to users, which is necessary for
understanding.
2.0.24 will use
--list-options show-uid_validay
as default.
Shalom-Salam,
On 06/24/2014 03:55 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:51, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
securely. Exposing the UID validity is a step toward making the trust
model calculations more visible to users, which is necessary for
understanding.
2.0.24 will use
--list-options
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:37, pe...@digitalbrains.com said:
I think it's a good idea. It's a vital piece of information if you actually
The majority of users are using a GUI and thus the command line version
does not matter at all. Although people should know better, I am pretty
sure that there
On 13/12/13 15:37, Werner Koch wrote:
The majority of users are using a GUI and thus the command line
version does not matter at all.
I suppose when those people have questions they go the mailing list of
the GUI in question, but still, since there is an amount of more-or-less
newbies coming
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:04, pe...@digitalbrains.com said:
Has it ever been researched in which way users use GnuPG? A part of the
GUI users might also still use the command line for certain things.
My guess is that the majority of GnuPG users are not aware that they are
using GnuPG. They see
Am Fr 13.12.2013, 15:37:59 schrieb Werner Koch:
The majority of users are using a GUI and thus the command line version
does not matter at all.
Strange argument IMHO. Would you say the same about Linux? 99% of the desktop
users don't know that there is a shell / console layer thus it's not
On 12/13/2013 02:09 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
I estimate that not more than 1% of all GnuPG users are using gpg in the
shell.
this sounds like an argument for being willing to change the
human-readable output on the shell -- there are not many people looking
at it anyway, and most of those people
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:05, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said:
Maybe. But it is trivial to check whether gpg runs as part of a script, isn't
it? It already does so today. I have forgotten where it is done but some
Huh? It is impossible without using a lot of heuristics and knowledge of
the
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:24, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
this sounds like an argument for being willing to change the
human-readable output on the shell -- there are not many people looking
at it anyway, and most of those people are sophisticated user.
It is a Unix tool and people want to have
On 12/13/2013 04:27 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:24, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
I think for a piece of critical security infrastructure, GPG has been
supporting some insecure practices for far too long.
Why do you think this is insecure? Because gpg does not encrypt to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/12/13 19:00, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
What do people think about changing the default of show-uid-validity to
yes?
I think it's a good idea. It's a vital piece of information if you actually
want to use the key properly, IMHO.
Peter
On 12/12/13 20:37, Peter Lebbing wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And that was all... I never intended to sign, but I have Enigmail's option
Encrypt/sign replies to encrypted/signed message turned on because I don't
want to forget encrypting when I reply to encrypted mail,
12 matches
Mail list logo
