On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:08:14AM +0300, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> : I may stick with GnuPG as is. However that
> : raises my original question. gpg.rc uses gpg_2comp (I may have the name
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> gpg.rc don't use gpg_2comp starting at 2000-03-03. All commands what use
> gpg_2comp is commented out and replaced by "clear" gpg commands.
Hmmm. Mea Culpa. So they are. I just saw something about using this
gpg_2comp and got it. I then saw it was to fit with pgp2.
OK, but I am still confused. What gave rise to the change ealrlier this
year. How compatible is gpg with mutt using this gpg.rc with other
versions of pgp?
It seems to me that a lot of people sign their mutt messages but that
only a small proportion are verified. Only a very few people use
encrypting and then only onlya on a one-to-one basis with someone they
really know and have arranged to have the same version of PGP. The
result is that there does not appear to be a lot of expertise on the
mutt list about all the incomatability questions. Or maybe I'm just
asking dum questions or not reading the files and manuals carefully
enough like in this case.
> Check for is you use fresh gpg.rc?
Yes, it was with the 1.3.10 unstable version.
Cheers, Brian.
>
> --
> Andrew W. Nosenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chemistry, School of BECS, SITE, NT University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.
Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847. http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/
Get PGP2 Key:- http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/duke.key.html
