la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.55 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.41 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar > > > > > > Wangberg: > > > > > > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+0000) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > > > > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why > > > > > > > > > there's always > > > > > > > > > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted > > > > > > > > > attachment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --=-FBjrxYQ2/8R5tscH+TLU > > > > > > > > > Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted; name="dat.asc" > > > > > > > > > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dat.asc" > > > > > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if so, what does it tell me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the "Content-Type:" says, that's the PGP encrypted > > > > > > > > attachment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why there are two .dat files. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want, forward the mail (as an attachment) to me and > > > > > > > > I'll have a > > > > > > > > look at it. But it won't be immediately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everything is working just fine now! I'm very pleased with > > > > > > > Evolution. > > > > > > > But what does it mean when it says that the signature is > > > > > > > valid, but > > > > > > > cannot confirm the sender (I don't know the exact wording in > > > > > > > English)? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is the same what I see here: > > > > > > Signatur existiert, jedoch wird der öffentliche Schlüssel > > > > > > benötigt. > > > > > > or > > > > > > gpg: Signatur am Sa 20 Feb 2016 16:56:34 CET mit RSA Schlüssel, > > > > > > ID > > > > > > 7C174863, erfolgt. > > > > > > gpg: Unterschrift kann nicht geprüft werden: Öffentlicher > > > > > > Schlüssel > > > > > > nicht gefunden. > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't checked the English UI but it could there sound like: > > > > > > Signature exists but the public key however is > > > > > > needed/required. > > > > > > or > > > > > > gpg: Signature at the Sa 20 Feb 2016 16:56:34 CET with RSA key, > > > > > > ID > > > > > > 7C174863, is carried out. > > > > > > gpg: Signature cannot be checked: Public key not found. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I was expecting this from others, like when I don't trust or > > > > > sign > > > > > their keys. Hm. I didn't expect from my own private key. So I > > > > > have to > > > > > sign and trust my own key too! Like gpg --sign, and level of > > > > > trust. I > > > > > wonder if I should trust myself with level 5 ... ;) > > > > > > > > > So your expectation is right. Me - as OTHER one - can't trust the > > > > sender > > > > is really YOU as far as not having your public key to check if it > > > > fits > > > > the private key you signed your mail with. Keeps me hanging on if I > > > > don't know where to get your public key, except you would be so > > > > kind to > > > > send it to me. Easiest way was to include it in your mail > > > > somewhere. > > > > I don't know, how Evolution exactly handles this, but the > > > > mechanisms of > > > > PKI are simple at last ... > > > > > > What happens if you run gpg --recv-keys 7C174863 ? That will give you > > > my > > > public key, right? You can also type in my email address in > > > gpg.mit.edu. > > > But I'm really curious if my public key-block is supposted to be > > > attached to my signature? The 7C174863 is already there, yes? I don't > > > know what people usually do. Probably compare the fingerprints with > > > each > > > other before they sign and trust. How Evolution works, I really don't > > > know. > > > > > > My key weren't confirmed in my sent messages before I trusted my own > > > key. So I guess that's what other people that trust me have to do > > > too. > > > > Your signature should look like this one > > > > -- > > Rudolf Künzli - rudolf.kunzli@gmail.comSkype: rudolf.kunzli > > > Your signature looks like this: > > gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1 > gpg: Signature made la. 20. feb. 2016 kl. 21.41 +0100 CET using RSA key > ID 0D20E541 > gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
Mine looks like this: gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1 gpg: Signature made la. 20. feb. 2016 kl. 21.55 +0100 CET using RSA key ID 7C174863 gpg: using PGP trust model gpg: Good signature from "Stig Roar Wangberg <s...@openmailbox.org>" gpg: binary signature, digest algorithm SHA256 Probably 'cause it's signed and trusted. And probably yours would look like that to me too, if I were to sign and trust your key. S
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
