Re: GnuPG distribution signature
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:06, faramir...@gmail.com said: Hello, Is key D869 2123 C406 5DEA 5E0F 3AB5 249B 39D2 4F25 E3B6 ( 0x4F25E3B6 ) the current key used for signing files? I suppose it is, Yes, it is. See my OpenPGP mail header for a list of all my keys and their descriptions. There is a small error in the announcement: gpg --recv-key 4F25E3B6 The distribution key 1CE0C630 is signed by the well known keys It should say gpg --recv-key 4F25E3B6 The distribution key 4F25E3B6 is signed by the well known keys Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG distribution signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hello Faramir ! Faramir faramir...@gmail.com wrote: Is key D869 2123 C406 5DEA 5E0F 3AB5 249B 39D2 4F25 E3B6 ( 0x4F25E3B6 ) the current key used for signing files? I suppose it is, but I'd like to ask before issuing a local signature. This is what I get; seems you are using another key? === Begin Windows Clipboard === gpg: Signature made 01/31/12 00:06:15 gpg:using RSA key 0xEF733C40 gpg: Good signature from Faramir.cl (It's a nickname, of course) faramir...@gmail.com gpg: aka Faramir faramir...@gmail.com gpg: aka Javier Fernández Almirall (aka Faramir.cl) gpg: aka Javier Fernández Almirall (GSWoT:CL68) fara...@gswot.org gpg: aka Javier Fernández Almirall (CAcert Assurer) jfernandez@cacert. cl gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 388C 1FBD BE98 35D7 BD02 253B 8212 1A45 4319 410E Subkey fingerprint: 16B1 A455 916E AF30 0623 CA51 C578 7FA3 EF73 3C40 === End Windows Clipboard === - -- Laurent Jumet KeyID: 0xCFAF704C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) iHEEAREDADEFAk8nnHkqGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9pbnRkZWNoYXQubmV0LzB4Q0ZB RjcwNEMuYXNjAAoJEPUdbaDPr3BMZBEAn1KG41qySnF/YKFKbRK/GBy6NLmyAJ9l DITkg1T1miUtiMo9XPQ6WyY+Ew== =ue/T -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Compiling GnuPG problem
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 09:03:59PM -0800, Davi wrote in cabojjny9mupeymszbwrkajanrxvjkmx5dq8rhq1gorspo7x...@mail.gmail.com: GnuPG crew, Thank you in advance for your patience. I am new to Linux, new to Ubuntu, and new the GnuPG and this is the first time I am trying to do any of this. I successfully downloaded a package named gnupg-2.0.18.tar.bz2 from gnupg.org. Following the instructions, I successfully configured the package using the ./configure command, but when I attempted to compile he package using the make command I received the error message, make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop. yet I can see two makefiles in the folder: Makefile.am and Makefile.in. Am I doing something wrong? Did apply the commands in the wrong directory? What do you recommend? Hi Davi, What is your intended goal? Is it to compile (this specific version) of gnupg from source, or just to use gnupg? If the latter, as root doing: apt-get install gnupg should download and install a working gnupg version on your computer. Cheers, Remco signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:40:08 -0500 Robert J. Hansen articulated: This comes fairly close to my own practices, with one significant exception: since it's almost impossible for me to know whether all the MUAs used on a mailing list support PGP/MIME, I feel it's better for mailing list traffic to be inline. I take the opposite approach. Due to the way inline messes up the format of a message, and obviously renders the sig-delimiter useless, I prefer to use PGP/MIME. Plus, so many morons, I could use intellectually challenged if you prefer, fail to trim a replied to messaged; ie, they leave all of the superfluous inline garbage plus other parts of the replied to message intact rather than strip it out, just adds to the annoyance factor. Supporting the inline method is like supporting a grown child. If you keep supporting him/her, they will never leave home. Stop supporting them and they will leave. The same is true for inline PGP. If support for it were to cease, it would also. Of course, I really feel it's better for mailing list traffic to not be signed at all, since usually all it gives us is a false sense of security. A signature from an unvalidated key belonging to an unknown person whom we don't know from Adam doesn't mean much, if anything at all. I totally agree. I have never seen or heard any logical excuse for the signing of list traffic. What am I going to do, attempt to use the identity of another poster? What purpose would that serve anyway? As you so eloquently pointed out, A signature from an unvalidated key belonging to an unknown person whom we don't know from Adam doesn't mean much, if anything at all. By the way, unvalidated is probably not a word; at least accord to Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unvalidated. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Revoke a key 0E84608B
I tried to revoke this key since after changing a passphrase on 2012-01-28 and using it with new passphrase immediately after, after a few hours I could not again be successfull (bad passphrase). But revkey also askes for a passphrase. Is there any way to revoke this key? Best regards 0x0E84608B.asc Description: application/pgp-keys ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Revoke a key 0E84608B
I tried to revoke this key since after changing a passphrase on 2012-01-28 and using it with new passphrase imidiately after, after a few hours I could not again be successfull (bad passphrase). But revkey also askes for a passphrase. Is there any way to revoke this key? Best regards 0x0E84608B.asc Description: application/pgp-keys ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Reply-to netiquette (was [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org...)
On 31/01/12 00:09, John Clizbe wrote: On the Netiquette part of this thread, I too set a Reply-To header that seems at least one person regularly ignores. Please don't CC me on list replies. One copy is enough. Well, I don't know if you refer to me, my apologies if so. I know how that comes about when /I/ reply to a mail you write. Thunderbird doesn't show me your Reply-To: header. Not even if I press View-Headers-All! It took me some time to find the circumstances under which this happens. It turns out that if To: and Reply-To: have the same e-mail address, Reply-To: is silently dropped. And this is exactly the case with your messages. I just press the button reply all, and Thunderbird addresses a CC: to you. Remember I haven't seen your Reply-To header, so I can't take a decision on what it means myself, only Thunderbird gets to do that. If this dropping of Reply-To: is a bug, and fixed, then hopefully I'll notice it and remove a CC: if the person I'm responding to has Reply-To: gnupg-users... set. But it's still something that can easily be overlooked. If I press reply to list, even people who would want a CC: when I reply to their message will not get one. I was under the impression reply to all was the convention here on gnupg-users. Isn't it? I read Dan J Bernsteins words on Reply-To and his propositions, Mail-Followup-To etcetera. I'm going to be blunt here: it's a pity DJB came up with these, because I think a less controversial person would have much more chance of getting it into an RFC. I don't want to spark a pro- and contra-DJB discussion here, so please take a few breaths before you reply. There should be mail headers for: - List customs: reply all/reply list - Personal preferences overriding list customs: do you want CC:'s? Either that, or we should all exclusively use Usenet ;). Do away with the concept of mailing list altogether. Peter. PS: I'm running Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/2014 Icedove/3.1.16, as you can see in the headers ;). On Debian wheezy. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~lebbing/pubkey.txt ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org, i.e.: To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:28:39 -0600 John Clizbe articulated: Interestingly enough, your Sig Delimiter is bonked. That is an unfortunate consequence of signing my message with GnuPG; all lines lose trailing spaces and any line beginning with a dash gets prefixed with a dash and a space. That is part of the OpenPGP standard RFC 4880. Trailing space removed and line endings canonicalized to CR-LF. Lines beginning with a hyphen/dash are dash-space escaped - in order to avoid confusion with OpenPGP message headers. There used to be a bug in the Mozilla mailnews code that left -- alone, but stripped the space from - -- . I think it was fixed some time ago. Thanks, I thought that, that behavior was specified somewhere, but I was not sure of the RFC the specified it. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Revoke a key 0E84608B
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:16, marko...@eunet.rs said: Is there any way to revoke this key? No. That is way we suggest to create and print out a revocation certificate right after key creation. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Compiling GnuPG problem
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:03, themuslimagor...@gmail.com said: I successfully downloaded a package named gnupg-2.0.18.tar.bz2 from gnupg.org. Following the instructions, I successfully configured the package using the ./configure command, but when I attempted to compile he Are you sure that the configure run was successfully? Read the error messages closely. At the end of a successful run you should see a list of configure options active for the build (platform: , etc.). Most likely you missed to install or build a required dependency Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Reply-to netiquette (was [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org...)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:22:43 +0100 Peter Lebbing articulated: On 31/01/12 00:09, John Clizbe wrote: On the Netiquette part of this thread, I too set a Reply-To header that seems at least one person regularly ignores. Please don't CC me on list replies. One copy is enough. Well, I don't know if you refer to me, my apologies if so. I know how that comes about when /I/ reply to a mail you write. Thunderbird doesn't show me your Reply-To: header. Not even if I press View-Headers-All! It took me some time to find the circumstances under which this happens. It turns out that if To: and Reply-To: have the same e-mail address, Reply-To: is silently dropped. And this is exactly the case with your messages. I just press the button reply all, and Thunderbird addresses a CC: to you. Remember I haven't seen your Reply-To header, so I can't take a decision on what it means myself, only Thunderbird gets to do that. If this dropping of Reply-To: is a bug, and fixed, then hopefully I'll notice it and remove a CC: if the person I'm responding to has Reply-To: gnupg-users... set. But it's still something that can easily be overlooked. The Thunderbird bug was fixed I thought awhile ago. I did not notice the version of Thunderbird that you are employing. You could try the latest version, V.9.0.1 and see if that corrects the problem. If I press reply to list, even people who would want a CC: when I reply to their message will not get one. I was under the impression reply to all was the convention here on gnupg-users. Isn't it? This is an OPT-INlist. Some lists, like FreeBSD are open, but not this one. Therefore, the use of a CC is neither required, nor in many instances, appreciate. In actuality, it serves no purpose at all on an OPT-IN mailing list. I read Dan J Bernsteins words on Reply-To and his propositions, Mail-Followup-To etcetera. I'm going to be blunt here: it's a pity DJB came up with these, because I think a less controversial person would have much more chance of getting it into an RFC. I don't want to spark a pro- and contra-DJB discussion here, so please take a few breaths before you reply. There should be mail headers for: - List customs: reply all/reply list - Personal preferences overriding list customs: do you want CC:'s? The net is littered with ideas from people who were well liked and respected whose ideas never made it into an RFC. The Reply-To works well for those who use it. Unfortunately, some MUA's have just never gotten their head around the concept. Filing BUG reports and basically making yourself a pain in the ass to the developers of those applications can work wonders. Either that, or we should all exclusively use Usenet ;). Do away with the concept of mailing list altogether. I have used Usenet for many years. Like any other form of communications, it has its advantages and drawbacks. PS: I'm running Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/2014 Icedove/3.1.16, as you can see in the headers ;). On Debian wheezy. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Revoke a key 0E84608B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hi Marko, how I understood your issue: you have a key, changed it's passphrase and used it successfully after that. Then, after some time, you could no longer use it since GnuPG said you entered a bad passphrase. If that's correct, here are my thoughts: - - There is no known passphrase mingling issue with GnuPG, so a passphrase you once set should still work, but - - It could be that you entered it with a different keyboard/lang/codepage setting. If you have several locales installed (e.g. in Gnome), please figure out which characters could be different. - - Your key worked for some time and then no more after a while. That might be due to gpg-agent that still had your key cached. After cache expiration, it reasked for the passphrase. - - To CREATE a rev cert, you need your secret key and your passphrase. To IMPORT an existing rev cert, you don't need a passphrase. That is why you should create a rev cert directly after generating a key pair. - - If your broken key was uploaded on a keyserver and you cannot revoke, it will stay valid there forever - just add a newer key and live with it. If you successfully imported it, mind to upload the revoked public key. Olav - -- The Enigmail Project - OpenPGP Email Security For Mozilla Applications -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Dies ist eine elektronische Signatur - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQGcBAEBAwAGBQJPJ/7QAAoJEKGX32tq4e9WuC0L/ifx7TIzHPCucWXjYO9mbYtr TvHcf4b3ec8Eom4zAX0YEeGluj3bCxru84Z3O1ALYpCd1EnKN2w1HwHBGgS+lu6I YzxQwvM/JrhFQ/7rQ5z6wknPay4FtIRQ6hz9JuYhA70LBMN4lxfdRPMJ9LZNX2by OzvMOKyApNw6ZnYgeH6haUPBlZIP2a7N3s4S1mz2mt8N5Mz+D6s5OaZvGW5TVn73 y19mN35wnCEv8QYHySazr+IwWV41dxfYN/p0d//h0VSQdDlAbmL8Rle1O+hLrHEk P4hAGCKrORZRO1PN+gbb0pUy5HbL6wPhaK42HfEjrEyMgAY1dP4weVOqi9m0hIsc vFWY1x0gcZguhmehNdnksM9JciQTUbDlTsN2Bpp80znYhLJ6cZ87ZNVYdgiXe0v+ jDqNYuvNM4AU09TLWM85T7kkE9EQ80rFDyD2auf/uqfrSTE80zpKGZfVEXchlqsd rNgR4QHEKXD4lbWHm7M4JBJbkCdt1td9jzpkeajO7Q== =ChPo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
Supporting the inline method is like supporting a grown child. If you keep supporting him/her, they will never leave home. Stop supporting them and they will leave. The same is true for inline PGP. If support for it were to cease, it would also. That was the idea behind the question I posed about Enigmail inline default setting. I understand the replies but it's similar to iOS-devices and flash support. Only since adobe got some pressure from the market, flash is under development and has become a little more effective (and also superfluous, since HTML5 is working just fine). Sometimes if the right parties decide to no longer support an old standard the software that does not support the new (better) standard will die or get improved but I'm not sure I wanna wait for Microsoft to properly program their mail-client. They obviously have enough money to through at that problem but decide not to. Of course, I really feel it's better for mailing list traffic to not be signed at all, since usually all it gives us is a false sense of security. A signature from an unvalidated key belonging to an unknown person whom we don't know from Adam doesn't mean much, if anything at all. You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some information. Should I still stop signing list mails? So far, I used to do that, because I though people then could check and if my key is signed by someone they know it's a lot of important information, right? all the best, steve signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On 31/01/12 16:23, Steve wrote: You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some information. Should I still stop signing list mails? So far, I used to do that, because I though people then could check and if my key is signed by someone they know it's a lot of important information, right? Unless there is an official policy against signing list mail I'd suggest you continue doing whatever you want. I myself intend to. IMO, if there's one place you should be able to sign email, it's the GnuPG users mailing list. It's called dogfooding. -- Mike Cardwell https://grepular.com/ http://cardwellit.com/ OpenPGP Key35BC AF1D 3AA2 1F84 3DC3 B0CF 70A5 F512 0018 461F XMPP OTR Key 8924 B06A 7917 AAF3 DBB1 BF1B 295C 3C78 3EF1 46B4 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] The issue of the unwelcome CC (please email me if you receive a CC from me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 1/30/2012 06:09 PM, John Clizbe wrote: I always get a chuckle every time I read someone writing that inline signing is somehow deprecated. Strangely enough, the only place I can find the origination of such an idea is in the PGP/MIME RFC 3156 itself which strikes me as somewhat self-serving. Deprecation is not mentioned in the OpenPGP standard RFC 4880. I use PGP/MIME when I know a mailing list supports it and inline when I know it doesn't. I use PGP/MIME if I know the recipient's MUA supports it, inline otherwise. On the Netiquette part of this thread, I too set a Reply-To header that seems at least one person regularly ignores. Please don't CC me on list replies. One copy is enough. I will not comment on the inline signing issue. I am using the latest version of Mozilla Thunderbird (9.0.1) for my platform. I see your Reply-To header in the message source. In this message window I do NOT see a CC to you. If you do receive a CC of this message, please be so kind as to inform me - I will file a bug report and change email clients in that case. It was my understanding that this bug had been fixed in Thunderbird, but I may be mistaken. I know that in a GNU/Linux user mailing list I have long been signed up for, I will occasionally receive CC's not for replies to my own messages, but for replies where the poster's To: line is to the person to whom they are replying and the message is CC'ed to the list. Chris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPKCQqAAoJEJ6vdel2qM1c+wAP+gN+noRnZdDMJ55QQsZtXIZe wn8z3/rthcBc/pPX60CePRgdJNNqLkP5NQ47qos66uJuRBXJB1+N1INBFf0djtVy qcsKZ9KbVfEpnwngKXJCRgLk4pP1qvLXl+or078GKcE7ASmoe0MaYIlU/o8bLCMR imyUxt8nUseCKZlTYXXY8++uoV10wo3/qBbADKL19EARJ8ogdx2H92E3OEPvm8N9 CSHL6MursG/Mz7Xip6Mi+mQhElDxYfIHcjnAsqQrcop+1SyZYpxTvlYBAQmhjrdE lH6RbcnLO+p0Cj2Q4UYCxSpL8t00aI6pF4adwVAuFLhKhXh4YHHKy5yC7XRN6hXf cylXV9cNHOtFCy12vmmPyDU7M09DbqSfyFEm4YJqF2pYvsz61Kxc6y9gAle0LhMU AFfdqYaFlQBujarSnchTaKFmn4XebrsTTuiiHcOQ4nZGcMXK0ASj+1WZtohV5esY Lr1WFIJTxYZkcvBlm0YAKK72DzMA/QG2rEWjmxzZ7Kcw43LkSzi8YQPsQhYbbovG Gw+rCdPkqbWc3hrq5jI3NkX6m2R9EvLtM/5zQspfpW3ACbpKNInQqhFq/uU/Md3E FBTINrQFjKz4vYu1WEb8qWKMqIwC4mDVK22uxjAsZj2y+0PPiyF/PJUAG8PPdrYH jTQ4JjA7qHM9B9Khr0ir =BqN0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120131-0, 01/31/2012 Tested on: 1/31/2012 12:26:08 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 05:23:59PM +0100, Steve wrote in 946fffc5-a191-4073-9d69-fc7fdc695...@gpgtools.org: Of course, I really feel it's better for mailing list traffic to not be signed at all, since usually all it gives us is a false sense of security. A signature from an unvalidated key belonging to an unknown person whom we don't know from Adam doesn't mean much, if anything at all. You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some information. Should I still stop signing list mails? So far, I used to do that, because I though people then could check and if my key is signed by someone they know it's a lot of important information, right? I appreciate signed mails on this list (and any other lists). Most problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to people being completely anonymous. If you stand behind your words, show so by signing your posts. Cheers, Remco signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On 01/31/2012 11:23 AM, Steve wrote: Sometimes if the right parties decide to no longer support an old standard the software that does not support the new (better) standard will die or get improved... This works if and only if the right parties are a large enough market to push implementations around like that. Enigmail isn't. Assume we have 50,000 installations. (This sounds like a lot, but it's a pale shadow compared to GnuPG installations.) Of those, maybe 5,000 are serious users and the rest are casual ones, people who saw it on Mozdev and got intrigued and installed it and never really did anything with it. Those 5,000 users don't represent a single bloc, though: they're spread out through a whole lot of different communities, where they represent extremely small minorities within those communities. As a for-instance, on my old high school class's mailing list I'm pretty sure I'm the only person who's even heard of Enigmail. If I were to tell the list maintainers, you need to upgrade your version of Mailman, it's breaking my PGP/MIME signatures, the response I'd get would probably be, what's PGP/MIME, and why is it important, and why do all your messages have those weird attachment things on them, anyway? You at least know that the person with that key is the author. That is some information. No, you don't. A few years ago on PGP-Basics one user threw a screaming fit over how many users were not signing our posts to the list. He insisted that signatures were meaningful, that they proved the person with that certificate is the author, and so on. John Clizbe, John Moore and I conducted a little experiment. We created a single certificate. All three of us used the exact same certificate to sign our posts to PGP-Basics. The person who was most up in arms about our lack of signing was placated, and thanked us for seeing the light. It was another few months before anyone realized we were all using the same certificate. Honestly, up until that point I thought that maybe there was some utility to mailing list signatures. Maybe. That experiment changed my mind: I now see no utility to them for the vast majority of uses. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 19:46:05 schrieb Robert J. Hansen: Enigmail isn't. Assume we have 50,000 installations. (This sounds like a lot, but it's a pale shadow compared to GnuPG installations.) Do you mean hidden installations (used unnoticedly by a distribution's update tool in the background) or actively planned instattations (I need GnuPG.)? It is hard for me to believe that a serious user of GnuPG does not use it for email. I use it at work for administration purposes (so without email) but for most people I know it's the other way round: They use it for email only. I admit that I do not use Thunderbird but is it's share among GnuPG users so much smaller that among all users altogether? I now see no utility to them for the vast majority of uses. But you admit that this depends on the current situation (described by: hardly anyone uses it)? I hope that the law will pledge big companies in the near future to sign their emails and offer encryption at no additional cost. Then most normal users will encounter cryptography regularly and thus the number of people who use it should increase a lot. Hauke -- PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] The issue of the unwelcome CC (please email me if you receive a CC from me)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:26:07 -0500 Christopher J. Walters articulated: It was my understanding that this bug had been fixed in Thunderbird, but I may be mistaken. I know that in a GNU/Linux user mailing list I have long been signed up for, I will occasionally receive CC's not for replies to my own messages, but for replies where the poster's To: line is to the person to whom they are replying and the message is CC'ed to the list. I have encounter two individuals, not on this list, who also think it is cute to mail a response directly to the OP and then CC the list. Honestly, some people are alive only because it seems cruel to kill a retard. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Revoke a key 0E84608B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 31-01-2012 9:12, Marko Randjelovic escribió: I tried to revoke this key since after changing a passphrase on 2012-01-28 and using it with new passphrase immediately after, after a few hours I could not again be successfull (bad passphrase). Since you know the old and new passphrase, maybe you can bruteforce it, using passphrases as a guide and looking for characters that could have been mistyped. I don't know about tools to do it, but there should be some. But revkey also askes for a passphrase. To generate a revocation certificate you need the private key, so you need the passphrase. If you have an already generated revocation certificate, importing it doesn't require passphrase. Is there any way to revoke this key? No. If you uploaded your key to keyservers, the only thing you can do is to ask people that signed that key to revoke the signatures on it, that way, it would be easier to chose the right key in future (I mean, once you get a new key, and it gets signed, people will find 2 keys, one signed, and new, and another with revoked signatures, and older). Best Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPKEeqAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAv2EIAI8wTLWn2tv89Nw8T9TozIT0 MvTp++8cmMUbn3HjzG6Q6T8bxWu9lQGy55MeP1Qx2wAw6A5m4PT/0Ys1Qc8Cdnqt ffcia/SroyS/knm/jnzQfht3oNocHU1X/OSYzJqEZ6E1CCTLs4c0TeNlRleF9UCZ V/IVQSZcxd25pl7GRl0tFbSdDihrwG6b6FFgZ6e/Rw02hus+sFUv2jv7ZWn5hdI5 KKJgdCC4KgBbXrSuGV9i7heSAEDvRbL0On0ysqLMRO43DlLet65hsmA09u527RgK fDn9mpCI82jNuD/AmeJcVP1uaI1bgoowUkr8w3RYJ4fvtS6iQjnT5pKjbmO2bKk= =9bNi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Revoke a key 0E84608B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 31-01-2012 9:12, Marko Randjelovic escribió: I tried to revoke this key since after changing a passphrase on 2012-01-28 and using it with new passphrase immediately after, after a few hours I could not again be successfull (bad passphrase). I searched your key, and it will expire in about one and half year, so, if everything fails, at least it won't haunt you until the end of time. Best Regards, and good luck with the attempt to recover it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPKEkCAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA7osH/1oX7AO8v12MfZh1B73LXr9j AicqVp33L632dZYNez/oB0w1htDGPcIH0AqTXai4OdRN9wm3qldgDQycMhDRpLyP BImc6psM0IY8eaOyJ2FpEe0LTCjomlmnYetdt67P1H1s23iAn4jgwJbIYZ7m4v9e KiKmCtme+//tvFehiA7R7L/z69MPglZghoJdqEnoXGQaM1t7zvGQX2NOIVCRzDf8 e+oFrOzYf5sk212+g+ZwMs/N5ncZMUgVVNAy96PqcB2aJV0L+krs2+9Bj4nJ3Ocu /bHSh0BrN47muakvAjOIBLJiKJPFRqintPx6YV/wcJ697jXDxofDIoVa7aElpNs= =p5tD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
Jerry wrote: I totally agree. I have never seen or heard any logical excuse for the signing of list traffic. I almost never sign anything unless I suspect the destination can at least ignore the signature. The people with whom I send e-mail (a diminishing population because most have moved to texting on cell phones, or twitter or Facebook) have no interest in security, though they sometimes act in a paranoid fashion about eavesdropping. But they refuse to do anything about it. They cannot deal with MIME signatures (at least those still using AOL), and cannot ignore them either. They hate the inline signatures too. When I do sign, it is just to draw attention to the fact I have a public key and can accept signed and encrypted e-mail. And so far, other than complaints about extraneous text in my emails, that is about it. I really get no use from it. So signing to this list, and an occasional test that my stuff is still working is the only use I get from gnupg and enigmail. The stuff I would really prefer to send encrypted I cannot send that way because those to whom I would send it could not read it (they have no software and no public keys). And if they could, they would probably save it in clear text somewhere, forward it, or whatnot. I think PGP and gnupg are really great ideas, whose time has not yet come. And by the time people realize its usefulness, the snooping community will have made it impossible to use it anymore. People sending encrypted e-mail will be disappeared. The time for that has not yet come. I hope it is postponed until after I can no longer use a computer. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jerseyhttp://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 13:45:01 up 20 days, 21:11, 3 users, load average: 4.78, 4.89, 4.99 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Remco Rijnders wrote: I appreciate signed mails on this list (and any other lists). Most problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to people being completely anonymous. If you stand behind your words, show so by signing your posts. OK. I stand behind this post. But other than amusing myself, does it really make any difference? - -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jerseyhttp://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:05:01 up 20 days, 21:31, 3 users, load average: 4.52, 4.76, 4.84 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFPKDwqPtu2XpovyZoRAlfyAJ4k3TxXHBy8hSHorl6xowjoUl9vrwCbBuUr ZU51SVdnmQg12VS77wVOpcc= =7Cba -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
GnuPG asp net on web server
Dear I would like to use GnuPG in my asp net application. I'm using bellow code and it is working correctly on localhost, but after publishing on webserwer (Windows server 2008 64 bits) encription not start, also with admin rights. Could you tell me if is possible to use GnuPG 1.4.7 in asp net (2.0 and higher) application, and if yes what I should chaneg in bellow code to use this on web server? Maybe any addictional configuration should be done on IIS or web server? I tried all posibilities which I found on MSDN. Thanks for your help Dim writer As New StreamWriter(sciezka MyLog.log, True, System.Text.Encoding.ASCII) Try Dim szyfrowanie As New Process() szyfrowanie.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = False szyfrowanie.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = True szyfrowanie.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = True szyfrowanie.StartInfo.RedirectStandardError = True szyfrowanie.StartInfo.WorkingDirectory = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings(GnuPGExeLoc) szyfrowanie.StartInfo.FileName() = gpg.exe szyfrowanie.StartInfo.Arguments() = --recipient mail --armor --encrypt sciezka nazwa_pliku writer.WriteLine(Now() winlogin.Text Szyfrowanie.Start) szyfrowanie.Start() szyfrowanie.WaitForExit() writer.WriteLine(Now() winlogin.Text Szyfrowanie.Koniec) Catch ex As Exception writer.WriteLine(Now() winlogin.Text ex.Message) End Try ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Reply-to netiquette (was [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org...)
On 01/31/2012 05:05, Jerry wrote: This is an OPT-INlist. Some lists, like FreeBSD are open, but not this one. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Both this list and all of the FreeBSD lists require you to subscribe. In fact FreeBSD lists also use mailman. -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use
From: Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org Cc: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:46:05 -0500 Subject: Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META) I now see no utility to them for the vast majority of uses. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 One, albeit rather unimportant, use is to help people with whom you would like to regularly communicate access and check your key a bit more easily, especially for people with multiple keys. Given the fingerprint (often in the e-mail signature), the GPG key can be downloaded and immediately tested against the GPG signature. Granted, very little utility, but still greater than zero 8-). - --Avi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.78 Comment: Most recent key: Click show in box @ http://is.gd/4xJrs iL4EAREKAGYFAk8oSc1fGGh0dHA6Ly9rZXlzZXJ2ZXIudWJ1bnR1LmNvbS9wa3Mv bG9va3VwP29wPWdldCZoYXNoPW9uJmZpbmdlcnByaW50PW9uJnNlYXJjaD0weDBE NjJCMDE5RjgwRTI5RjkACgkQDWKwGfgOKfm6YAD/XdrMCwcMNPXAML/ybu6fN8im yMvIfJ4uPW2ekdzC14wA/RVAh0f1Mwpz2okn9uY2sv9E0Be5+ULY5GKLxcRtb0qQ =DRzx -END PGP SIGNATURE- User:Avraham pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) avi.w...@gmail.com Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E 29F9 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, re...@webconquest.com wrote: Most problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to people being completely anonymous. If you stand behind your words, show so by signing your posts. If the idea is more important than who said it, signing (in both the non-technical literary sense and the crypto sense) is extra. After all, not everything is a contest. Alternatively, if a comment is likely to be seen as a contest (whether by some person or some Big Brother), again signing is extra. And in any case there is always the virtue of modesty. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Revoke a key 0E84608B
On 01/31/2012 13:08, Marko Randjelovic wrote: On 01/31/2012 01:58 PM, Werner Koch wrote: No. That is way we suggest to create and print out a revocation certificate right after key creation. Thanks all to your suggestions. I just got one idea. I have a backup. Can I unpack my secret ring file backup and use it to generate revocation certificate, since in that file it's still old passphrase that I typed many times? If you have access to a valid copy of your secret key there is no reason to revoke it ... unless of course you have reason to believe that it's been compromised in some way. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Using the not-dash-escaped option
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message Hi On Monday 30 January 2012 at 4:27:44 PM, in mid:ab8b81216d496cec1af6fe8144c99...@biglumber.com, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: That's exactly what the --not-dash-escaped option is for. Granted, it's not portable to some other PGP implemetations, but if there is any mailing list in world in which it would be acceptable, I would think it would be this one! :) I'm guessing that's what you did, and the cut mark was not munged. Trying the same right back at ya. Are you sure this is what the option is for? The man page says it is to enable cleartext signatures to be used with patch files. -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTyhgAqipC46tDG5pAQpg9AP9HYu/PsjgNo2oPoQ0d+bvj0gFCSfptqNT qgnhF70S6RJltww/RPPmylKFPSQBCRgFz3RFMnBkNKWUjjYwpfN6WwvCmYjtixIE JSALrRUmOnsK9hQPJJEipjNMM9a9s5zmiIuJlv1QAX4eqIfVqvwGYiDUPjYjO8tb bm5ih9IOivc= =37wl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Tuesday 31 January 2012 at 6:02:27 PM, in mid:4f282cb3.3040...@lists.grepular.com, gn...@lists.grepular.com wrote: IMO, if there's one place you should be able to sign email, it's the GnuPG users mailing list. It's called dogfooding. OK, but should we *clearsign* our messages to the list? - -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com After all is said and done, a lot more will be said than done. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTyhtUKipC46tDG5pAQrVygP8DzWjMR6H/Qo+FKhUaONQjz8GKiWs5dX4 jBccVhN+1UbVhADvIYcq4Ws1wM0ZmrBFHxxGBvkWvqprV7piwYdv4QCTD3cihqM8 SA0ScsbzFizBoMGf4WRttoUDzsfDlaobkJQuTTFVW3L3gXfxtL2PSB7uv01IGKzI qBZE5Xw+duI= =CHkV -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] The issue of the unwelcome CC (please email me if you receive a CC from me)
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 06:35, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote: I have encounter two individuals, not on this list, who also think it is cute to mail a response directly to the OP and then CC the list. Honestly, some people are alive only because it seems cruel to kill a retard. I've done this before (on this list), but only because I had the impression almost everyone else here did it, so I just wanted to go with what I assumed to be expected. I don't think this makes me look like a retard, but rather considerate, since I tried to figure out what appeared to be the netiquette on this very list before posting anything. But thanks for the clarification anyway. Richard ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use
One, albeit rather unimportant, use is to help people with whom you would like to regularly communicate access and check your key a bit more easily, especially for people with multiple keys. Putting a kludge in email headers or a OpenPGP Key ID: 0xD6B98E10 in the sigblock seems to be a more efficient method of achieving this end. Given this is an awful heavyweight way to achieve an end that's just as correctly achieved via lightweight means, I don't see this as a reason to sign messages. To add a sigblock, sure. :) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] The issue of the unwelcome CC (please email me if you receive a CC from me)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:26:07 -0500 Christopher J. Walters articulated: It was my understanding that this bug had been fixed in Thunderbird, but I may be mistaken. I know that in a GNU/Linux user mailing list I have long been signed up for, I will occasionally receive CC's not for replies to my own messages, but for replies where the poster's To: line is to the person to whom they are replying and the message is CC'ed to the list. I have encounter two individuals, not on this list, who also think it is cute to mail a response directly to the OP and then CC the list. Honestly, some people are alive only because it seems cruel to kill a retard. Okay, the harshness of language here has baited me to reply: There's a simple reason people do this, and it's because it is a common choice for large lists, including the Linux family of mailing lists, the Postgres family of mailing lists, and the FreeBSD family of mailing lists, and the GCC mailing lists -- and these are the first four projects I thought of, all of which use the To: OP, CC: The List convention. The common (and entirely valid) use case being that one can filter for mail that is To: them, and not necessarily read *all* mailing list traffic. gnupg-users has a Reply-To convention that is an outlier in that crowd of mailing lists. Were I someone who was expected to respond to mail on this list frequently and the list was of higher volume, I'd find it very frustrating. Nevertheless, it's fine that gnupg-users has its own way of dealing with this, but as long as it is an outlier in this respect, you are going to get the occasional email addressed in this way, from people who otherwise think that somehow the 'reply' fields were actually filled in in error. Also, Message-Id. Getting two copies should be a non-problem. -- fdr ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org, i.e.:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Monday 30 January 2012 at 7:06:43 PM, in mid:20120130190643.gb184...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx, brian m. carlson wrote: The problem is that unlike regular list messages, the dupes don't come with the list headers, which makes sorting them based on the list headers problematic. The group's email address gnupg-users@gnupg.org usually appears in the To: or CC: field of the duplicate message. Why not filter/sort on that and catch most of them? - -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com Dreams come true on this side of the Rainbow too! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTyh39aipC46tDG5pAQqdTAP+OqHm70dD2P5Z8zrNxfFD26pGKZ8Fvw/Z z1Dr3PGi1dZQBr0u+fj79z6bNlTTDGgMR3ypu4GLm4TNBiU9f3gyZtlReEsOUemX Qp58zzTWAvKJB4hJ5Svi5u1n2uJcAwmH4W0stZze+0WVzJz2OzOE1DlsNFaU7Xw7 yyDfZfXBjEE= =h7qZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Using the not-dash-escaped option
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Tuesday 31 January 2012 at 10:29:53 PM, in mid:caeh5t2p4u+3nt7nlgwfjr6qh_72wlj7ygw5gabw1a1zjpss...@mail.gmail.com, Paul Hartman wrote: It's still missing the trailing space, assuming you put one there in the first place... many people don't realize it's supposed to be there. It's in my message templates with the space. Almost every line of my messages ends in a space. These are removed when I sign the message, as per the openPGP standard. I guess not-dash-escaped doesn't extend to keeping the space on the cut mark... - -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@rocketmail.com I'll tell you what's the matter! This parrot is dead! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTyiA1KipC46tDG5pAQpP1QQAm6Ac6ZNDc9GyvtHZg1Wxs3ZUQFlYkkj5 YyJ8/8uy7ECwTUIW1zFac3r6pdU1hXN57AjoWrmdCSw4uw1wiEMTcwMLNoeQLNLG Sbp5r+2So51QfGWZI/AUT609zfMaxaWmaTYQhicbeFZYXlvxlXnhBASqb7GjqQ0d uSIJtR2WCbo= =iVNn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use
Warning: do not take *any* of the numbers here seriously. They may be completely divorced from reality. These numbers are like Monopoly money -- completely fake, but still useful to illuminate important lessons about the real thing. This email is also quite long, and I apologize for that. I haven't the time to make it shorter. On 1/31/2012 2:25 PM, Hauke Laging wrote: Do you mean hidden installations (used unnoticedly by a distribution's update tool in the background) or actively planned instattations (I need GnuPG.)? Either/or. Enigmail's users are a small fraction of GnuPG's no matter how you slice it. It is hard for me to believe that a serious user of GnuPG does not use it for email. This sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. If someone uses GnuPG but not for email, does that disqualify them from being a serious user? Is your definition of 'serious user' structured in a way as to implicitly select for email users? I admit that I do not use Thunderbird but is it's share among GnuPG users so much smaller that among all users altogether? Welcome to the world of Fermi problems, where your answers are as accurate as your prejudices. How many piano tuners are in Chicago? Well, there are about five million people in Chicago, an average household is somewhere between two and four people, maybe one in twenty has a piano that gets tuned once a year, one piano tuner can do maybe four in a day and doesn't like to work more than five days a week... uh, well, there are maybe between 125 and 250 piano tuners. More or less. Sorta. If our prejudices are accurate then our result will be. You can estimate GnuPG and Enigmail users in the same way. On average, each and every Linux installation has GnuPG installed. How many Linux users are there worldwide? Well, in the United States there are about 300,000,000 people, and probably 200,000,000 use computers on a regular basis. (Note that I'm not asking how many *computers* are in the United States, but how many *users*.) Linux might account for half a percent of mindshare, so ... my prejudice is that there are about a million GnuPG users in the United States. They might not even know it, but they're part of the userbase. Enigmail's 50,000 users is just a slender few percent of GnuPG's user base. (And believe it or not, this is an apples-to-apples comparison: all Enigmail users compared to all GnuPG users.) The knowing-users comparison is different. Essentially all of Enigmail's users are knowing users. You have to first download Thunderbird, then download Enigmail. (GnuPG is already on your system.) You've taken two deliberate steps to put Enigmail on your system: the odds are very good that you know Enigmail is there and you want the capability it provides. So of our 50,000 users, probably close to all of them know they're our users. GnuPG is a little different: of a million Linux users in the United States, how many of them actually think about how many times GnuPG is being used behind the scenes to validate their software downloads and sign packages and whatnot? Somewhere between one in ten and one and three? So against our 50,000 'knowing' users, GnuPG would still crush us with between 100,000 and 350,000 'knowing' users. I now see no utility to them for the vast majority of uses. But you admit that this depends on the current situation (described by: hardly anyone uses it)? Of course not. Even if *everyone* used email crypto, signatures would still be largely, and maybe entirely, useless. I don't know where this myth began that messages are somehow trustworthy because they sport signatures. That's not how the world works. (Well, I suppose it *can* work, the same way you can choose to blindly trust anyone who speaks Occitan with a lisp and has a strange fascination with argyle. However, just as you might think someone who would trust completely based on such criteria to be foolish, I think people who believe signatures create trust are just as foolish.) Signatures extend trust's reach: they can't create it. My friend Raven used to live just up the highway from me. We regularly got together for tea. When we were sitting face to face, I trusted the integrity of what she was saying. Now that she's far away, if/when we need to guarantee the integrity of our message we use GnuPG to do so. The trust we had in a face-to-face communication has had its reach extended to cross thousands of miles. But if she and I hadn't met before, if we didn't have a shared experience upon which to build trust, then signatures would be meaningless. The reach of trust has been extended, sure, but that doesn't help much when there isn't trust. Let's have another example here. I woke up at about eight in the morning on 9/11. I was living in California and I was moving that day. All my belongings had already moved out: I had no television, no radio, nothing, just myself, a sleeping bag and a laptop. I woke up that morning, made
Re: [META] The issue of the unwelcome CC (please email me if you receive a CC from me)
On 1/31/2012 6:18 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: Okay, the harshness of language here has baited me to reply: First, thank you for keeping your response civil. I appreciate it a lot. There's a simple reason people do this, and it's because it is a common choice for large lists, including the Linux family of mailing lists, the Postgres family of mailing lists, and the FreeBSD family of mailing lists, and the GCC mailing lists -- and these are the first four projects I thought of, all of which use the To: OP, CC: The List convention. The common (and entirely valid) use case being that one can filter for mail that is To: them, and not necessarily read *all* mailing list traffic. I agree with you. I thought this convention was sufficiently obvious as to not need pointing out. In 20+ years of being on the Net, this is the first time I've ever seen a flamewar erupt over something as ridiculous as whether it's a mark of mental retardation to have on-list and cc responses. With respect to GnuPG's outlier convention, I've never heard of it. I've received both on-list and cc's many, many times in the past. People are, of course, free to request what they want: but this trend of getting angry and furious at people who do not comply seems to me to be a social power-play and I want none of it. Dan Geer had the right approach, I think. He said, politely, that he prefers not to receive a separate cc. I plan on honoring this as far as my memory allows. He didn't tell me that I *must* not, or that I was a 'retard' or a 'moron' if I did so. I don't mind people being argumentative. (I've been accused of being brusque many, many times. Guilty as charged, and unrepentant.) But the level here has gone from good form straight into unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd like it if we could stop that and de-escalate back to our usual level of vigorous, impassioned argument. :) ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Reply-to netiquette (was [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org...)
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:26:05 -0800 Doug Barton articulated: On 01/31/2012 05:05, Jerry wrote: This is an OPT-INlist. Some lists, like FreeBSD are open, but not this one. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Both this list and all of the FreeBSD lists require you to subscribe. In fact FreeBSD lists also use mailman. OK, I thought it was self evident; however, I guess I need to explain the difference more clearly. I am not sure what terms mailman uses, so I will use open-posting and closed-posting The meanings will become self evident. The basic FreeBSD forum is open-posting. A poster need not be subscribed to the forum. What that means is that anyone may post to the forum. To see a response, they will either have to convince every responder to the post to CC him/her or view the replies on the web interface. Now most, but not all, forums are closed-posting. If a non-subscriber attempts to post to the forum, they will receive this response: * Your mail to 'Gnupg-users' with the subject Testing Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL: (URL removed by me) This is an actual reply from a test message I sent awhile ago. Now, unless the poster intended to wait an indefinite period of time, said time varying from a few hours to a few days, depending on the forum, there is virtually no likelihood that anyone would waste their time posting if they were not subscribed to the forum. Now, I am sure that someone will make the statement that they wouldn't mind waiting an indefinite period, hoping that their message will be approved and then hoping that the responders to said post actually do CC them. I have a term I use for people like that. It takes only 3 minutes or less (I once subscribed to a forum and responded to the email in less than 3 minutes) to subscribed one's self. If the poster cannot take the time involved to subscribe to a list, then they don't have the time to be posting to the list. Now, this is all very simple to me; however, I am sure that someone is going to tell me what a burden subscribing to a list is. I actually find that rather amusing since I wonder if they find wiping their ass after taking a crap a burden too. Now Doug, I hope I have explained it to your satisfaction. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Q: What came after the Big Bang? A: The walk of shame. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:04:57 -0500 Robert J. Hansen articulated: And then I imagined my dean answering, That proves nothing: after all, if I was posting this stuff I wouldn't sign it, either. Don't apologize, I loved you post. One of the better one's I have read in a while. It appears that your Dean was a sharp individual. You analogy is interesting too. In the '50s in the USA, there was a movement to require individuals to take a loyalty oath It was at the height of the McCarthy era. The theory was that it would root out communist. Finally, it dawned upon these intellectually challenged jerks that a real communist would have no problem taking such an oath since it would be to their advantage to do so. Sometimes you just have to shout, WTF. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ What if there had been room at the inn? Linda Festa on the origins of Christianity signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org, i.e.:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:23:25PM +, MFPA wrote: On Monday 30 January 2012 at 7:06:43 PM, in mid:20120130190643.gb184...@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx, brian m. carlson wrote: The problem is that unlike regular list messages, the dupes don't come with the list headers, which makes sorting them based on the list headers problematic. The group's email address gnupg-users@gnupg.org usually appears in the To: or CC: field of the duplicate message. Why not filter/sort on that and catch most of them? Because that means that instead of using one procmail rule to autosort all mailing lists I have to write one for every list I might subscribe to. This is error-prone and defeats the purpose of using a generic tool to do repetitive tasks easily. Most mailing lists have a List-ID header for this purpose. Majordomo lists use a different convention which is also easily sorted on. Also, when I'm subscribed to a mailing list, I expect people to post their replies to the list unless there's a personal reply that is not appropriate for the list. For lists that require subscriptions, that means that it's guaranteed that everybody will get a copy, which is the point of a mailing list. Why intentionally send me an extra? Who wants two copies of an email? -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Reply-to netiquette (was [META] please start To: with gnupg-users@gnupg.org...)
On 01/31/2012 16:17, Jerry wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:26:05 -0800 Doug Barton articulated: On 01/31/2012 05:05, Jerry wrote: This is an OPT-INlist. Some lists, like FreeBSD are open, but not this one. I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Both this list and all of the FreeBSD lists require you to subscribe. In fact FreeBSD lists also use mailman. OK, I thought it was self evident; however, I guess I need to explain the difference more clearly. I am not sure what terms mailman uses, so I will use open-posting and closed-posting The meanings will become self evident. The basic FreeBSD forum FYI, forum generally refers to something different than a mailing list. I point this out mostly because http://forums.freebsd.org/ exists. is open-posting. A poster need not be subscribed to the forum. Actually many of the FreeBSD lists moderate posts from non-members, but none of them outright block them. I realize that this isn't germane to your main point, but I wouldn't want the wrong information to live forever in the archives. :) Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Using the not-dash-escaped option
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 09:41:16PM +, MFPA wrote in 516876184.20120131214116@my_localhost: That's exactly what the --not-dash-escaped option is for. Granted, it's not portable to some other PGP implemetations, but if there is any mailing list in world in which it would be acceptable, I would think it would be this one! :) I'm guessing that's what you did, and the cut mark was not munged. Trying the same right back at ya. Are you sure this is what the option is for? The man page says it is to enable cleartext signatures to be used with patch files. And for what it's worth... my client tells me the signature on this particular post you made is invalid. Your other posts to this list all pass the test ;-) Kind regards, Remco signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: PGP/MIME use (was Re: META)
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:08:26PM -0500, Jean-David wrote in 4f283c2a.6070...@verizon.net: Remco Rijnders wrote: I appreciate signed mails on this list (and any other lists). Most problems these days on the internet are, in my opinion, related to people being completely anonymous. If you stand behind your words, show so by signing your posts. OK. I stand behind this post. But other than amusing myself, does it really make any difference? To me it does some. Knowing that we know that you are really Jean-David Beyer and that it probably is not a made up name, makes it far more likely that you'll consider your words before posting them online and that it is also less likely that you'd be trolling just for the fun of it. Please note that I am in any way suggesting you'd be trolling otherwise, but a properly signed post for which a trust path from my key to yours exists does make a difference to me. A small one perhaps and you might not find it worth signing your posts for my convenience / peace of mind, but if you do sign it, I do appreciate it :-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
