On 1/3/2019 at 10:14 PM, "MFPA" wrote:> [3] only for the overly
paranoid who revel in tedious
> work-arounds 8^) :
> (a) Encrypt to both yourself and the recipient
> (b) Remove your own id packet from the ciphertext,
> (c) Re-calculate the crc of the ciphertext
> (d) Send the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 3 January 2019 at 12:02:39 AM, in
, vedaal via
Gnupg-users wrote:-
> [2] encrypt only to the sender, but also encrypt the
> plaintext only
> to you, and store the encrypted file in your sent or
> other
> convenient folder, with
On 1/2/2019 at 3:59 PM, "justina colmena via Gnupg-users" wrote:
>My opinion is that should be the case. However, most MUAs I've used
>include the BCC recipients' keys in the encryption along with the To
>and CC recipients' keys, so any email addresses in the user-IDs of
>these keys are visible
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 11:56:27 -0900, justina colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On January 1, 2019 4:13:43 PM AKST, MFPA
> <2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >With hidden-recipient or hidden-encrypt-to or throw-keyids, it is
> >clear how many keys were encrypted to, but the key IDs
On January 1, 2019 4:13:43 PM AKST, MFPA
<2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
>Hi
>
>
>On Monday 31 December 2018 at 9:06:39 PM, in
>, justina
>colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:-
>
>
>> Shouldn't an email message (for example) be encrypted
>> separately to
>> each BCC recipient,
>
>My
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 31 December 2018 at 9:06:39 PM, in
, justina
colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:-
> Shouldn't an email message (for example) be encrypted
> separately to
> each BCC recipient,
My opinion is that should be the case. However, most MUAs
On December 31, 2018 5:38:10 AM AKST, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>Hello Damien.
>
>Am Montag, den 31.12.2018, 12:45 + schrieb Damien Goutte-Gattat:
>> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:17:21AM +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-
>> users wrote:
>> > Yes, that's correct. Anyways, I prefer
Hello Damien.
Am Montag, den 31.12.2018, 12:45 + schrieb Damien Goutte-Gattat:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:17:21AM +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-
> users wrote:
> > Yes, that's correct. Anyways, I prefer using the --hidden-recipient
> > for this purpose. That prevents the disclosure of
On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:45:44 +, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:17:21AM +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
> > Yes, that's correct. Anyways, I prefer using the --hidden-recipient for
> > this purpose. That prevents the disclosure of the communication
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:17:21AM +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Yes, that's correct. Anyways, I prefer using the --hidden-recipient for
> this purpose. That prevents the disclosure of the communication paths
> with pure GPG-Packet analysis.
You do realize that, in the case of
But isn't the documentation wrong for the edge-case when you specify
--encryp-to within gpg.conf and do not specify a recipient? According to
that documentation when you only specify --encrypt-to, but no --recipient,
then the value of --encrypt-to should also not be used and that means we
would
Hello.
Am Sonntag, den 30.12.2018, 22:40 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 18:05:37 +0100, Gernot Pokorny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > What is the difference between --encrypt-to and --recipient and
> > what are the advantages and disadvantages of using one over the
> > other, which one
ng
> mean?
>
> --encrypt-to ... The key specified by name is used only when there are
> other recipients given by the user or by use of the option recipient. ...
>
>
> I also posted that question under stackoverflow:
> https://superuser.com/questions/1389024/gpg-difference
there are
other recipients given by the user or by use of the option recipient. ...
I also posted that question under stackoverflow:
https://superuser.com/questions/1389024/gpg-difference-encrypt-to-and-recipient/1389030#1389030
Thank you
___
Gnupg-users mailing
14 matches
Mail list logo
