Re: No Debian package for 1.4.2

[Cameron Metzke]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Roscoe wrote:

> I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get
> in - and not new vewsions. (I maybe wrong on that.) (Naturally that
> only applies to stable..)
>
> Building and installing your own gnupg.deb from gnupg.org sources
> has significant merits though. (For those unfamilar its a three
> command process: dh_make, dpkg-buildpackage and dpkg -i)
>
>
> On 9/9/05, Oskar L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know why there still isn't a Debian package for
>> version 1.4.2 of GnuPG? http://packages.debian.org/gnupg
>>
>> Oskar
>>
>> ___ Gnupg-users
>> mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>>
>
> ___ Gnupg-users mailing
> list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
Since I just updated my ubuntu version of GunPG to 1.4.2, and noticed
this message to the list i thought I would upload the deb package I
put together. It's there if you want it basically :)

http://www.cameronmetzke.com/folder/software/debs/gnupg-1.4.2_1.4.2-1_i386.deb

If you do use it, any feedback would be appreciated as to any problems
you might encounter. It worked fine for me, I only had to change the
path to the executable in enigmail to /usr/local/bin/gpg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDIRrFiJKCWGgxIoARAo1DAKC1GVlSBH8ULBVomfMSw2/vilQSNwCglEWy
4mz/6WADzMBIVGyLNU0GB1o=
=xsmY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: [Sks-devel] stripping GD sigs (was: Re: clean sigs)

[Jason Harris]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:23:08PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:10:23PM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:

> > Not at all.  Anyone who wants sigs from the GD should use that
> > keyserver.  They're still available from it, and, remember,
> > expired sigs don't affect the WoT, so what's the point of the
> > well-synchronized keyservers keeping GD sigs?
> 
> You're not dropping expired signatures.  You're dropping all
> signatures from a particular key - expired or not.  Those signatures
> are part of the web of trust.  The web of trust now has a different
> view from your keyserver than from the rest of the world.

Indeed, all keyservers (except the GD) should drop GD sigs.

> If I ran a keyserver, would it be appropriate for me to drop all
> signatures from your key D39DA0E3 simply because they're available
> somewhere else?

keyserver.pgp.com doesn't synchronize with other keyservers, by design,
which they maintain to be a GoodThing(TM).  Are you currently insinuating
that the GD sigs should spam the well-synchronized keyservers?

> Personal opinions as to the usefulness of signatures should not be a
> factor in what a keyserver stores.  It's a very dangerous path to go
> down: do you also strip signatures from someone "known" to be a bad
> signer?  What's the criteria for inclusion in your keyserver?  Is it
> stated somewhere so users can read it?

Right now, TTBOMK, only the GD is, indeed, ""known" to be a bad signer."

-- 
Jason Harris   |  NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _|_ web:  http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/
  Got photons?   (TM), (C) 2004


pgphlnTtva2V1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: [Sks-devel] stripping GD sigs (was: Re: clean sigs)

[David Shaw]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:10:23PM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:08:24PM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> 
> > > keyserver.kjsl.com is now stripping all GD sigs.  The extra variable
> > > in kd_search.c and code for 'case 2:' of make_keys_elem(), respectively:
> > 
> > It's your keyserver, and you of course make the choices for what it
> > carries, but for the record, I think this is a bad idea.  Skipping the
> > usual discussion about the GD (I don't think anyone will convince
> > anyone else at this point), you do realize that this means you are
> > making a decision to edit the web of trust for others based on your
> > own personal criteria.
> > 
> > I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> > keys: that would put the user in control.  Forcing your decision on
> > others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.
> 
> Not at all.  Anyone who wants sigs from the GD should use that
> keyserver.  They're still available from it, and, remember,
> expired sigs don't affect the WoT, so what's the point of the
> well-synchronized keyservers keeping GD sigs?

You're not dropping expired signatures.  You're dropping all
signatures from a particular key - expired or not.  Those signatures
are part of the web of trust.  The web of trust now has a different
view from your keyserver than from the rest of the world.

If I ran a keyserver, would it be appropriate for me to drop all
signatures from your key D39DA0E3 simply because they're available
somewhere else?

Personal opinions as to the usefulness of signatures should not be a
factor in what a keyserver stores.  It's a very dangerous path to go
down: do you also strip signatures from someone "known" to be a bad
signer?  What's the criteria for inclusion in your keyserver?  Is it
stated somewhere so users can read it?

David

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: [Sks-devel] stripping GD sigs (was: Re: clean sigs)

[Jason Harris]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:28:29PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:08:24PM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:

> > keyserver.kjsl.com is now stripping all GD sigs.  The extra variable
> > in kd_search.c and code for 'case 2:' of make_keys_elem(), respectively:
> 
> It's your keyserver, and you of course make the choices for what it
> carries, but for the record, I think this is a bad idea.  Skipping the
> usual discussion about the GD (I don't think anyone will convince
> anyone else at this point), you do realize that this means you are
> making a decision to edit the web of trust for others based on your
> own personal criteria.
> 
> I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
> keys: that would put the user in control.  Forcing your decision on
> others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.

Not at all.  Anyone who wants sigs from the GD should use that
keyserver.  They're still available from it, and, remember,
expired sigs don't affect the WoT, so what's the point of the
well-synchronized keyservers keeping GD sigs?

-- 
Jason Harris   |  NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _|_ web:  http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/
  Got photons?   (TM), (C) 2004


pgpVpCDcbiDjD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: [Sks-devel] stripping GD sigs (was: Re: clean sigs)

[David Shaw]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:08:24PM -0400, Jason Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:00:25PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:33:47AM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> 
> > > 3. Because now I was irritated, I did the same again with a different 
> > > keyserver 'keyserver.kjsl.com' and I got a completely different 
> > > result! When I fetched the key 08B0A90B, here it didn't have 47 sigs, 
> > > but only 15 sigs (see below output2). There was only a double self 
> > > sig, which 'clean' removed later. How can this be, if the keyservers 
> > > are synchronized?
> > 
> > Looks like they're not all that well synchronized :)
> 
> Well, keyserver.ubuntu.com is still not participating in email syncs
> to non-SKS keyservers, but that's a different problem.
> 
> keyserver.kjsl.com is now stripping all GD sigs.  The extra variable
> in kd_search.c and code for 'case 2:' of make_keys_elem(), respectively:

It's your keyserver, and you of course make the choices for what it
carries, but for the record, I think this is a bad idea.  Skipping the
usual discussion about the GD (I don't think anyone will convince
anyone else at this point), you do realize that this means you are
making a decision to edit the web of trust for others based on your
own personal criteria.

I'd be all in favor of an option where users could elect to filter out
keys: that would put the user in control.  Forcing your decision on
others by stripping signatures is a very disturbing step.

David

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

stripping GD sigs (was: Re: clean sigs)

[Jason Harris]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:00:25PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:33:47AM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:

> > 3. Because now I was irritated, I did the same again with a different 
> > keyserver 'keyserver.kjsl.com' and I got a completely different 
> > result! When I fetched the key 08B0A90B, here it didn't have 47 sigs, 
> > but only 15 sigs (see below output2). There was only a double self 
> > sig, which 'clean' removed later. How can this be, if the keyservers 
> > are synchronized?
> 
> Looks like they're not all that well synchronized :)

Well, keyserver.ubuntu.com is still not participating in email syncs
to non-SKS keyservers, but that's a different problem.

keyserver.kjsl.com is now stripping all GD sigs.  The extra variable
in kd_search.c and code for 'case 2:' of make_keys_elem(), respectively:

static unsigned char gdkeyid[8] = {0x97, 0x10, 0xB8, 0x9B,
   0xCA, 0x57, 0xAD, 0x7C};


   if ((keyid.size == 8) && (keyid.offset == 0) &&
   (memcmp (keyid.data, gdkeyid, 8) == 0)) {
 break;
   }

-- 
Jason Harris   |  NIC:  JH329, PGP:  This _is_ PGP-signed, isn't it?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _|_ web:  http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/
  Got photons?   (TM), (C) 2004


pgpKGmmP5MbVf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: No Debian package for 1.4.2

[Roscoe]

I imagine it's because stable is frozen. Hence only fixes will get in
- and not new vewsions.
(I maybe wrong on that.)
(Naturally that only applies to stable..)

Building and installing your own gnupg.deb from gnupg.org sources has
significant merits though.
(For those unfamilar its a three command process: dh_make,
dpkg-buildpackage and dpkg -i)


On 9/9/05, Oskar L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone know why there still isn't a Debian package for version 1.4.2
> of GnuPG? http://packages.debian.org/gnupg
> 
> Oskar
> 
> ___
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: clean sigs

[David Shaw]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:33:47AM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Am 8 Sep 2005 um 16:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> 
> > I'm trying, but I still can't duplicate the problem.  Can you put
> > together a simple keyring and simple gpg.conf file that still shows
> > the problem?
> 
> I did what you asked me to do and now I'm completely confused!
> 
> First I deleted my gpg.conf, the keyrings and the trustdb.
> 
> Then I fetched the key 08B0A90B from the keyserver 
> 'random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de' and it was the same as yesterday: 
> 47 sigs with a lot of old expired sigs from the same key (see output1 
> below) and 'clean' later removed just one self sig and all the old 
> ones were still there. As 'clean' did the same as yesterday, it had 
> nothing to do with my gpg.conf, keyrings or trustdb.
> 
> Now I have three additional problems:
> 
> 1. The same key from the same keyserver just one day later, but if 
> you compare it with my output in my mail from yesterday, you see that 
> the sigs are in a completely different order! Why? Aren't they always 
> in the same order in the key? 

No, they're not.  The only requirement is that the signatures remain
after the appropriate user ID.  Within each user ID block, though, you
can rearrange signatures without affecting anything so most programs
don't give any particular effort to keeping them in order.

> 2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
> 'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10 
> gefunden'
> (my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key 0022FA10 
> found)
> As you can see in the output, I didn't ask for this key. There are no 
> keyrings or trustdb, as I deleted them before. I don't know this key 
> and I couldn't find it at the keyservers.
> Why did gpg try to find this key?

GnuPG will look for your own key.  Did you generate a key with that
key ID?

> 3. Because now I was irritated, I did the same again with a different 
> keyserver 'keyserver.kjsl.com' and I got a completely different 
> result! When I fetched the key 08B0A90B, here it didn't have 47 sigs, 
> but only 15 sigs (see below output2). There was only a double self 
> sig, which 'clean' removed later. How can this be, if the keyservers 
> are synchronized?

Looks like they're not all that well synchronized :)

> David, I really hope, you can reproduce it now or at least get an 
> idea what's going on.

Yes, I see what happened now.  It's just a misunderstanding.  "clean"
can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
want cleaned (so it can know which signatures to remove).  In your
case, you need to fetch key CA57AD7C (the PGP GD key).  Once you have
that key, GnuPG can remove signatures that it has issued.

David

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: clean sigs

[Dirk Traulsen]

Am 8 Sep 2005 um 16:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:

> I'm trying, but I still can't duplicate the problem.  Can you put
> together a simple keyring and simple gpg.conf file that still shows
> the problem?

I did what you asked me to do and now I'm completely confused!

First I deleted my gpg.conf, the keyrings and the trustdb.

Then I fetched the key 08B0A90B from the keyserver
'random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de' and it was the same as yesterday:
47 sigs with a lot of old expired sigs from the same key (see output1
below) and 'clean' later removed just one self sig and all the old
ones were still there. As 'clean' did the same as yesterday, it had
nothing to do with my gpg.conf, keyrings or trustdb.

Now I have three additional problems:

1. The same key from the same keyserver just one day later, but if
you compare it with my output in my mail from yesterday, you see that
the sigs are in a completely different order! Why? Aren't they always
in the same order in the key?

2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
gefunden'
(my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key 0022FA10
found)
As you can see in the output, I didn't ask for this key. There are no
keyrings or trustdb, as I deleted them before. I don't know this key
and I couldn't find it at the keyservers.
Why did gpg try to find this key?

3. Because now I was irritated, I did the same again with a different
keyserver 'keyserver.kjsl.com' and I got a completely different
result! When I fetched the key 08B0A90B, here it didn't have 47 sigs,
but only 15 sigs (see below output2). There was only a double self
sig, which 'clean' removed later. How can this be, if the keyservers
are synchronized?

I repeated this twice with the same outcome. The keys are different
and 'clean' doesn't work on the larger one. My system is gpg 1.4.2 on
WinXP Home with the latest updates.

David, I really hope, you can reproduce it now or at least get an
idea what's going on.

Dirk


++ Output1 +++

C:\DOKUME~1\Chef\Anwendungsdaten\gnupg>gpg -k
gpg: Schlüsselbund `C:/Dokumente und
Einstellungen/Chef/Anwendungsdaten/gnupg\secring.gpg' erstellt
gpg: Schlüsselbund `C:/Dokumente und
Einstellungen/Chef/Anwendungsdaten/gnupg\pubring.gpg' erstellt
gpg: C:/Dokumente und
Einstellungen/Chef/Anwendungsdaten/gnupg\trustdb.gpg: trust-db
erzeugt

C:\DOKUME~1\Chef\Anwendungsdaten\gnupg>gpg --keyserver
random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de --recv-key 08b0a90b
gpg: requesting key 08B0A90B from hkp server
random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de
gpg: key 08B0A90B: public key "PuTTY Releases (DSA) " imported
gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
gefunden
gpg: Anzahl insgesamt bearbeiteter Schlüssel: 1
gpg:  importiert: 1

C:\DOKUME~1\Chef\Anwendungsdaten\gnupg>gpg --list-sigs putty
pub   1024D/08B0A90B 2000-12-20
uid  PuTTY Releases (DSA) 
sig  6A93B34E 2000-12-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CC350332 2002-06-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  56C5DD90 2003-06-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  ADEB818B 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  50376667 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  9DB2B5BC 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  677BA1EC 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  E213B692 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  5DC3F473 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  30B94B5C 2005-05-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig 266A9A510 2005-01-27  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig 2348DA95A 2005-04-06  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig 308B0A90B 2000-12-20  PuTTY Releases (DSA) 
sig 308B0A90B 2000-12-20  PuTTY Releases (DSA) 
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-01-11  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-01-25  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-07  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-16  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-19  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-03-05  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-03-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-04-03  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-04-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-01  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-15  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-30  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-31  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-15  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-19  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-10  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-11  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA5

Re: clean sigs

[David Shaw]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> Am 7 Sep 2005 um 19:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
> 
> > I can't seem to duplicate your problem here.  Are you sure you
> > saved the result when you exited from --edit-key?
> 
> As you can see, I did. 
> I get the message 'already clean', but the sigs are still there.
> In spite the output being partly in german, I think it will be ok for 
> you.

I'm trying, but I still can't duplicate the problem.  Can you put
together a simple keyring and simple gpg.conf file that still shows
the problem?

David

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: No Debian package for 1.4.2

[John A. Martin]

> "Oskar" == Oskar L
> "No Debian package for 1.4.2"
>  Thu, 8 Sep 2005 20:26:10 +0300 (EEST)

Oskar> Does anyone know why there still isn't a Debian package for
Oskar> version 1.4.2 of GnuPG? http://packages.debian.org/gnupg

You can file a Debian wishlist bug report against gnupg. See
.

jam



pgpmghwoqMTTx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

No Debian package for 1.4.2

[Oskar L.]

Does anyone know why there still isn't a Debian package for version 1.4.2
of GnuPG? http://packages.debian.org/gnupg

Oskar

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: clean sigs

[Dirk Traulsen]

Am 7 Sep 2005 um 19:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:

> I can't seem to duplicate your problem here.  Are you sure you
> saved the result when you exited from --edit-key?

As you can see, I did.
I get the message 'already clean', but the sigs are still there.
In spite the output being partly in german, I think it will be ok for
you.

Dirk


C:\>gpg --ed putty
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.2; Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details.


pub  1024D/08B0A90B  created: 2000-12-20  expires: niemals usage:
CSA
 trust: unbekannt Gültigkeit: unbekannt
[ unknown] (1). PuTTY Releases (DSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Befehl> clean sigs
User ID "PuTTY Releases (DSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>":
already clean.

Befehl> q

C:\>gpg --list-sigs putty
Schlüsselbund: C:\Dokumente und
Einstellungen\Dirk\Anwendungsdaten\gnupg\pubring
.gpg
--
--

pub   1024D/08B0A90B 2000-12-20
uid  PuTTY Releases (DSA) 
sig 308B0A90B 2000-12-20  PuTTY Releases (DSA) 
sig  30B94B5C 2005-05-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig 2348DA95A 2005-04-06  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  50376667 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  56C5DD90 2003-06-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  5DC3F473 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  66A14468 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig 266A9A510 2005-01-27  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  677BA1EC 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  6A93B34E 2000-12-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  9DB2B5BC 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  ADEB818B 2003-07-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-09-04  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-09-02  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-08-31  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-08-30  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-08-28  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-08-27  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CA57AD7C 2005-08-27  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-08-21  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-08-15  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-31  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-31  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-29  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-24  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-11  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-10  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-19  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-06-15  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-31  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-30  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-15  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-05-01  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-04-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-04-03  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-03-20  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-03-05  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-19  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-16  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-02-07  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-01-25  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig   X  CA57AD7C 2005-01-11  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  CC350332 2002-06-17  [User-ID nicht gefunden]
sig  E213B692 2004-10-26  [User-ID nicht gefunden]

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: OpenPGP Card

[Werner Koch]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:30:39 +0200, Zeljko Vrba said:

> 1. PKCS#11
> 2. MS CAPI
> 3. vendor's proprietary API
> 4. do not support the HW at all

> Pick your poison :)

> Werner has chosen 4. for GnuPG, contrary to wishes of GnuPG users.

Not true.  I simply do not have a 4758 or other tokens here.  Having
worked with that beast a couple of years ago I know that it will be
very straightforward to integrate it into scdaemon (depending on the
applications used on the 4758).


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: WinPT

[Timo Schulz]

On Thu Sep 08 2005; 16:04, Graeme Nichols wrote:

> I have just installed the latest WinPT front-end 1.0rc2 from their web 
> site. I want to use my installed gpg 1.4.2 but it will not run. It produces 
> an error stating that it needs gpg 1.1 or higher. It runs OK with the 

The SF.net site of WinPT is not longer the primary download site. Please
try http://www.winpt.org and get 0.10.1 which is the newest WinPT version.
It also works with GPG 1.4.x.

There is a link to an English installer, but make sure you remove the old
1.0rc2 installer before.


Timo

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users