On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 22:26, kloec...@kde.org said:
Supports GnuPG versions: 1.4, 2.0
FWIW: Kontact Touch has been developed against GnuPG 2.1. I am not sure
whether it works with 2.0. The Linux version will likely work but the
WindowsCE version won't work - but well, nobody is using the
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:22, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
I can add these: it shouldn't be a problem. The reason I'm using XHTML,
incidentally, is to make it as easy as possible for you to convert it
into org-mode: an hour's work with a SAX parser should be able to take
care of most of it. If I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/12 02:36, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I believe the etiquette is that the signed key block should be
returned to the certificate's owner, for her/him to do what
he/she deems convenient, e.g. upload it to a keyserver.
I haven't found
On 6/5/2012 5:22 AM, gn...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
FWIW, until I read somebody complaining about people uploading key
signatures, instead of sending them to the key owner, it never
occurred to me that it could possibly be a problem for anyone.
I'll go one step further: my personal belief is
Hi,
IMHO (Open)PGP's good repudiation comes to great extend from the fact,
that it does not require rigor policies to use the keys. It is an
ad-hoc scheme and that is what differences it from S/MIME and PKIX.
It was my fault that I once set the no-modify flag for all new keys. In
practice this
The signer himself/herself should not upload the sign key block to a key
server, or publish it in any other way, without the certificate's owner
explicit authorization or request.
The new text reads,
Finally, if you have elected to make a normal signature you may wish to
upload the
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:24, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
text and layout. If anyone has recommendations about this, please speak
up now. With luck, we can have this thing to Werner by the end of the
Some time ago I added custom ids to most questions; for example:
** What is the recommended
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 09:11:13PM +0200 Also sprach Werner Koch:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:35, lists.gn...@mephisto.fastmail.net said:
require extensive manual configuration for it to work properly (but if
you're using Mutt, you already know that). See
http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttGuide/UseGPG
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:24, lists.gn...@mephisto.fastmail.net said:
I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but I will mention that
for the first time in a long while, Mutt segfaulted when I tried to
open a message on the gnupg mailing list... presumably when it tried
I see two reasons
On 6/5/12 8:56 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
Some time ago I added custom ids to most questions; for example:
I can add these: it shouldn't be a problem. The reason I'm using XHTML,
incidentally, is to make it as easy as possible for you to convert it
into org-mode: an hour's work with a SAX parser
On Monday 04 June 2012, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Also, if there are any questions you feel are missing, throw them out
too. Thank you!
An addition for 4.11:
Kontact [http://userbase.kde.org/Kontact]/Kontact Touch
[http://userbase.kde.org/Kontact_Touch]
Plugin? No (natively supported)
Supports
On 6/4/12 12:35 PM, Kevin Kammer wrote:
Section 2.6: For Solaris 11, gnupg is also available via the default
IPS publisher. The version Oracle provides is 2.0.17 vs 2.0.18 from
OpenCSW, but it is worth mentioning as it may satisfy parties who are
unwilling (or unable) to install via
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:35, lists.gn...@mephisto.fastmail.net said:
require extensive manual configuration for it to work properly (but if
you're using Mutt, you already know that). See
http://wiki.mutt.org/?MuttGuide/UseGPG for configuration details.
That is not true: Put
set
Robert J. Hansen 4fcc11f2.6050...@sixdemonbag.org June 4, 2012 4:22:54
PM wrote:
[snip]
Also, if there are any questions you feel are missing, throw them out
too. Thank you!
Section 4.7 How do I validate another person’s certificate? does not
deal with what one should do once she/he has
On 6/4/2012 4:39 PM, Charly Avital wrote:
I believe the etiquette is that the signed key block should be returned
to the certificate's owner, for her/him to do what he/she deems
convenient, e.g. upload it to a keyserver.
I haven't found widespread belief this is a community norm. There's a
Robert J. Hansen 4fcd629e.8010...@sixdemonbag.org June 4, 2012
10:38:58 PM wrote:
[...]
It's reasonable to present the controversy, and I'll make mention of it
in the next revision. That's as far as I'll go.
Fair enough, and thanks.
Of course, ultimately Werner is the one who gets
The unofficial FAQ is approaching completion. At this point I think
it's about two-thirds done. By this I mean most of the writing is
complete. Every FAQ entry should have at least a couple of sentences of
text. Some will have more, some less.
This FAQ is not meant to be a GnuPG tutorial,
17 matches
Mail list logo
