> On 10 Nov 2018, at 00:57, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
> I suggest using a Cron job, or a SystemD timer and service to do a
> refresh on a regular base.
I’ve found parcimonie to be useful.
https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/code/parcimonie/
Hello Stefan.
Am Samstag, den 10.11.2018, 00:41 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> Thanks too, Dirk,
> i already made a refresh.
Yeah, I read it right after I sent my Email.
I suggest using a Cron job, or a SystemD timer and service to do a
refresh on a regular base.
Regards,
Dirk
--
Dirk
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 00:00:18 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote:
> Hi Stefan.
>
> Am Freitag, den 09.11.2018, 16:18 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:12:19 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I get a valid signature but key has expired message, when
> > reading your
Hi Stefan.
Am Freitag, den 09.11.2018, 16:18 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:12:19 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I get a valid signature but key has expired message, when
> reading your posting.
>
> Regards
> Stefan
Peters key is valid. Probably you have to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:40:18 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/11/2018 16:18, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > I get a valid signature but key has expired message, when
> > reading your posting.
>
> In that case you should refresh your copy of my public key from the
> keyservers or from the URL in my
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Nov 2018 at 16:12:19 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 07/10/2018 03:01, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Does this make sense? you just need to make sure you tie the version of
>> gpg and the keyring into the same initramfs build time.
>
> The problem is that the gpg invocation is
On 09/11/2018 16:18, Stefan Claas wrote:
> I get a valid signature but key has expired message, when
> reading your posting.
In that case you should refresh your copy of my public key from the
keyservers or from the URL in my signature:
$ gpg --refresh-keys pe...@digitalbrains.com
or
$ gpg
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 16:12:19 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
[snip]
I get a valid signature but key has expired message, when
reading your posting.
Regards
Stefan
--
https://www.behance.net/futagoza
https://keybase.io/stefan_claas
pgpjJrfGjd4Uh.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Daniel, many thanks for thinking about this! I'm sorry I didn't respond
earlier.
On 07/10/2018 03:01, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Does this make sense? you just need to make sure you tie the version of
> gpg and the keyring into the same initramfs build time.
The problem is that the gpg
On Mon 2018-09-24 12:44:38 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The always-correct option would be to --export, copy the exported key to
> the initramfs, and simply --import it before use, no meddling with
> prefabricated keyrings. It does waste some processing.
I think you're right that this is an
On Mon 2018-09-24 01:09:25 +0100, Andrew Luke Nesbit wrote:
> This is using the contents of `~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/` as an API.
> If this is *not* part of the API, then what *is* the official
> recommendation for generating subkeys?
The part of those pages about "generating subkeys" does use
Hi there,
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 16:19:22 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> But the real question is: why do you need this, and what do you intend
> to do with it?
I believe it was a follow up to https://bugs.debian.org/903163, messages
≥160 in particular. TL;DR: for smartcard usage
On 23/09/2018 22:19, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> [...], if you're looking to export a specific key for transfer into
> any other implementation (including other versions of GnuPG). This is
> not only "acceptable" but it is normal, standardized, and widely
> interoperable.
I'm sorry, I did a
On 24.09.2018 02:09, Andrew Luke Nesbit wrote:
> This is using the contents of `~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/` as an API.
> If this is *not* part of the API, then what *is* the official
> recommendation for generating subkeys?
I'm not in a position to suggest "official" recommendations but one
On 23/09/2018 21:19, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sun 2018-09-23 18:18:13 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>> The intent of this mail is not to ask whether something works. This can
>> be easily verified. It's asking whether it is a supported way of doing
>> things. I hope I can get some guidance on
On Sun 2018-09-23 18:18:13 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The intent of this mail is not to ask whether something works. This can
> be easily verified. It's asking whether it is a supported way of doing
> things. I hope I can get some guidance on this!
I appreciate that you're asking for
Hi all,
The intent of this mail is not to ask whether something works. This can
be easily verified. It's asking whether it is a supported way of doing
things. I hope I can get some guidance on this!
On 23/09/2018 15:38, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The context is that for Debian's cryptsetup, I'm
17 matches
Mail list logo
