viewing a digest
Hi, how can I view a ml digest file -- many mails in one file? -- Johannes
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 00:51:02 [AM] (-0800) ESP [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote... As you've so kindly demonstrated, so is most list traffic. Quod Erat Demonstrandum BEG mh -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Linux - millions served - just today - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PGP signature
Re: keeping folder/mailbox status state upon exit
Hi, But, how do most people handle keeping track of which mail has been read? flags? old/new? Flag and, if you like, color. Or what else can people suggest to further ease things? You mentioned Procmail, so this wouldn't be news for you. Maybe you can setup a trashbin like discussed here a few weeks ago. Thorsten
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 12:42:49 [PM] (-0600) Brian Minton [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote... yes, but not completely, since at a later time, you can always produce your public key at a later time if necessary to prove that you did in fact write a given message, or that you did not. Thats not possible! If you signed a message (which you do with your private key) and i verify it with your public key (and im sure its yours) i can be sure YOU and nobody else wrote that message. If you generate a new key pair i would see that and would still have you public key. Wait a sec. you can always produce your public key at a later time Do you mean to *upload* your public key at a later time? Then you are right. I never thought about that. To upload you key later to prove you did write a message works. But you cant prove you didnt! What if you just generate a new one? This message is not from me. Thats not my public key! See! However, except for special circumstances, I can't imagine any reason not to send your public key to the keyserver, especially if you are going to be publishing (eg on a list) signed material. agree and yet you signed the message :-) see the joke there...? CYL mh -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Linux - its only limit is its physical environment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PGP signature
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:00:34PM +0100, Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Saturday, December 16, 2000 (CS:6.50.351) 12:42:49 [PM] (-0600) Brian Minton [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote... yes, but not completely, since at a later time, you can always produce your public key at a later time if necessary to prove that you did in fact write a given message, or that you did not. Thats not possible! If you signed a message (which you do with your private key) and i verify it with your public key (and im sure its yours) i can be sure YOU and nobody else wrote that message. No, you can be sure that someone that knew his passphrase and had access to his key wrote that message. It might have been him; it might have been the sysadmin of the machine poking through disk and memory. You'll note very little difference between this and using the host from which the message was sent for authentication. There's nothing about digital signatures to verify who typed the passphrase into the terminal. What you *do* know is that the message wasn't altered between signing and reading; any conclusion of authorship is based on a whole bunch of "ifs". Most of the time, the risk that those "ifs" imply is acceptable, but you don't *know*. -Rich -- -- Rich Lafferty --- Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
view application octet stream
Hi, is there something special I need to do to get mutt to view application octet-stream attachments? I just tried to view an attachment to a mail and all I get is a blank window. So, I saved the file and viewed it in Vim, which worked fine, but probably there's a better, mutter way.. thanks -- "If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." -- Maslow
Re: Question regarding clearsigning emails automatically
On Thursday, December 14, 2000 (CS:4.50.349) 18:08:48 [PM] (+0100) Werner Koch [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote... On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Lars Hecking wrote: IMHO signing list email is a useless and wasteful exercise, especially if the sender hasn't submitted his/her keys to the public keyservers. Well, that depends on the content of the mail. But you are right, for the bulk of ML traffic, there is no need for signing. Werner It you dont upload your key to the keyservers signing is useless and wasteful. On the other hand any signature is (mostly) a waste of bandwith! BB mh -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No signature - Saving bandwith! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PGP signature
