Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello everyone, Sorry I haven't responed earlier, summer, life and all that, but thank you for all your input. Haven't completely solved the thing about ANSI vs UTF-8 / OpenPGP/Enigmail/commandline etc signing, but we who use UTF-8 as default usually manage to verify each others' signatures without problems. As for the future about GnuPG 1.4.x, again, thanks for all the input and you've made me wiser. :) Bests, Sin T. Comment: Old key 0x3B708D7C revoked (1024D) Comment: New key is 0x88515CE5 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQK6fGAAoJEMIzFpSIUVzlSZwQAIrIF5opXGKGNNIo73VZb5X+ TPnkshdhXpH1jQVPJfv+w0qZYy9mqv9CwNZpCiFJ+HgqEJUeYmkyDa0bLLcr3XQK CFaVayYPNHlB/F/DiiWjOkjEL1lJUgNFp44aqjjJKv0IPb2ltoUKSAYObpS0cpoZ WW5znLd+9pBBVJed/JEy11YDgr8tyqL0bdUcZbnPoszi58APL00i26kqiTOt35Rc w0cgrfQPpGxr5gKLSCDnB+PWYLDttovtvM1mA/xVHolT5Bri0VvESHWW/ePNAy/f z7TsUz4rRtP2A0xQM/kQnggsONQP1g2+Of6OVZpYoOAcWidJCZFvGbx9NLJgK5A/ 8TpCIhKtpHsPHcfpNcCPPnskdPbCnm8yuS3+hz6Y3w+OksAv5phiE4EVJHKez/lB nG2KsJxRv8EYyPtv6N0CrLp+mU5c4gFgL8R5O56BqPvgTZuz3YWssW+cFpoCWAwP V2RVsl7+1FjScUyigk1M5yAMbbANSig2rySdiP8knepmUaNGOPj2z0N7MwPaQrVg /t53rhrq13TNry3oo0gJb7H/zb6CKDctzjGVbNrKC7N0ol8CrKlAcbRoPuM7Hs5m IrOR2OSI6/hjS2RAl2WEEu6G6BYBzcybJuTZfAQBXV+tKgLI2T5YD5t7U7FHJako +P3Q7897dfSTkkTviP7e =7QvE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [gnupg-users] Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:33, d...@prime.gushi.org said: > The 1.4 model still works better for certain things. I've never > successfully managed to make pinentry work in a shell/screen session > using my mailer, and I've never heard back from the GPG developers If you use curses, one problem is that you may need to redraw your screen after a pinentry popped up. The usual workaround is to schedule a redraw after decryption or signing. Given that we don't use 9600 terminals anymore, there should be no visible impact. > about allowing the main gnupg process to prompt for a pin directly, > without needing the socket/window of pinentry. As you should known this is by design. A wrapper and the PINENTRY_USER_DATA envvar is always an option to control the passphrase entry yourself. The GnuPG 2.1 gpg-agent has a way to tunnel pinentry requests back to the calling application - as of now gpg does not support this. 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: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:26, biggles.tren...@gmail.com said: > Is the plan to retire 1.x sometime in a not too distant future (I'm not > saying that I assume an actual time plan being set)? We have not really discussed such a plan. I don't see a technical reason to stop 1.4 maintenance in the near future. However, I doubt that it makes sense to port new feature (e.g. ECC support) back to 1.4, or work on performance improvements (e.g. AES hardware support). > The reason I ask is I have tried 2.x and even with various utf-8 settings, > signed mail fail verification approx 50% of the time for others as my client > does with theirs. English works fine, but it seems mail containing > Swedish/Danish/Czech letters (æ, ø, å, ä, ?, ?, ?, etc) get mucked up. I doubt that this has do do anything with GnuPG. In fact, I can't remember any code changes pertaining to data I/O between 1.4 and 2.x. 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: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05.08.2012 07:59, Laurent Jumet wrote: > > Hello Sin ! > > Sin Trenton wrote: > >> The reason I ask is I have tried 2.x and even with various utf-8 >> settings, signed mail fail verification approx 50% of the time >> for others as my client does with theirs. English works fine, >> but it seems mail containing Swedish/Danish/Czech letters (æ, ø, >> å, ä, ?, ?, ?, etc) get mucked up. > > I had some problems with non english characters too, but seems it > depends on text translations on my own board. With your special > characters above, my signature looks good here. Laurent, Enigmail says ``` gpg -komento ja -tuloste: /usr/bin/gpg2 gpg: malformed CRC gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used ``` for your email and fails to verify your signature. I think that the problem is spaces before your KeyID. gpg2 directly gives same error. - -- Mika Suomalainen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key: http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt Comment: gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 0x82A46728 Comment: Fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728 Comment: Why do I (clear)sign emails? http://git.io/6FLzWg Comment: Please remove PGP lines in replies. http://git.io/nvHrDg Comment: Charset of this message should be UTF-8. Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQHiFKAAoJEE21PP6CpGcoZckP/37iZQc6MfHYkUsQ92zMRtw4 XT9r/PviHwj6jVQ6ReQ2JHDFmXHaUu1s+b8lsBxV7MHce1upwR65IL9i38ezzEAU 0ySwWaIxn5CvGv95ltMlb3edBL2rb1Jn71tN3BJmc4Yqywvry7r+wrBhGAPV2w14 pt/xY3hMfkJDelDcfsurMbJ8JtKoxCAkv8mvVgNnDt0/Wym80g7ai3XMUKuDNqMy JfjwTWztLOKhD2quWEXeLnuZ/GiKqNyCsdOPr+2gqnff8KxyREozkg1cl6YkUbGs DvNaFuVpmNR4rUBdHueszRkZpUDKYpssR6vf1Epe9iGf3gDWSJ8De5fXtWmmKyIm jTQgUI/DJR8gRd2I8zKKemKjnxEaQbeCJ1KrJwXLvYjC4c0nOlkOzN/ewZb9yCh0 2wx1EM/VHBAqtZudjj7XBOqql1ibTWAz2g42jzC8BYX0YyYBOt4nsxJq0d26kj9E CZOOagaMJUHPONJTR6EqfBODFjYNaWZNNIsorOD7DL5jt9R8A/2nb+qzIB3lxm99 xpZtNU4aOr/3eXdZwnVbDW6apqxJJb/3YCEksyQt7jdRbZe01ZxaZshDD0pqoPRi KnvEXmNSnxTAns1+Es8lYwxNLXP6+cwsUz+dTfjvUJs1Y+NOh2PcWnLSX3Pjy17s YDXPS+MQOBNKPmKBEFwW =J3n2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 04.08.2012 22:26, Sin Trenton wrote: > The reason I ask is I have tried 2.x and even with various utf-8 > settings, signed mail fail verification approx 50% of the time for > others as my client does with theirs. English works fine, but it > seems mail containing Swedish/Danish/Czech letters (æ, ø, å, ä, ?, > ?, ?, etc) get mucked up. Have you set the charset to use in Thunderbird? "charset UTF-8" in gpg.conf doesn't affect emails, which you send, but I am still using it in addition to Icedove charset. Edit --> Preferences --> Display --> Advanced (on right of Default font) --> Character encodings. Set both outgoing and incoming to UTF-8 and select "When possible, use the default character encoding in replies". I am using Icedove (Debian version of Thunderbird) and as far as I can know, my emails can be verified and they are written with UTF-8. Also my ÄÖÅ should work (they are also Finnish chars, not only Swedish/Danish/Czech). - -- Mika Suomalainen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key: http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/key.txt Comment: gpg --keyserver pool.sks-keyservers.net --recv-keys 0x82A46728 Comment: Fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728 Comment: Why do I (clear)sign emails? http://git.io/6FLzWg Comment: Please remove PGP lines in replies. http://git.io/nvHrDg Comment: Charset of this message should be UTF-8. Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQHh1/AAoJEE21PP6CpGcoWe8P/iTtZEp3g+8ozjewa6etDB1Q g9ZHMsPYnJovN0A9fdX8494GFnz3Xr+AeRVpTym85xwi2Y6Lt9ahjPf8FHD45Yss 4IbDRXAi2GUW0uafRZnX7NVNs1U91oRB15KRaGppnMK1l/6Qa3S0KW8DbKKZQVog So475KjiqSo8IXrlSvcqz9IZxPS5LFemR52soITiJlaSFAGwIlobvOymf5S1jBoM 7TaCChLUcQFTGyjta74d8ztcwvZpfkh+bamOFu7n2cFfe8hBWcBfwXCuxiktkZbl 8Mvq86hW2hjOzuWQwU5FBVXYLDnO+UergTtrZw4BXApb4t+kCH+lEkkxH93qPP3T VzFQ/rCqZwGhGf4QefAEaiRiqdn5QqzcZGqbr1NutLIq4fngZhJ057mX/HLvIAU2 kBz+0p4jjgE3lT3IZmi511PejSROdNExuB482uq9MYC0dn+GlDTRwvKb08Nc+FWC KlIj9vUfeBW+jGuDffItZ5J6hd7BrkkcYkhyjI+VO6D2Az8VRMlB4rA7f0nEan0b 6iICciCALOXpYPVfk4aHsVoIvG+T+H2T1F+rSbdk1OSXu7wzrqdR6z0sqHKIb0Va biY1m26vnfFQNf/2JeE/qvcm8tdL4zj9ZkHjR1GT5I7EQjKGEtJ7w3Ftk1pDl7jS 83//Ii0x8fduzENrjlWc =Tasb -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: [gnupg-users] Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Robert J. Hansen wrote: On 08/04/2012 03:26 PM, Sin Trenton wrote: Is the plan to retire 1.x sometime in a not too distant future (I'm not saying that I assume an actual time plan being set)? I am not a GnuPG developer. My information is not definitive. Take it with a grain of salt. That said, my understanding is the GnuPG developers wish to end 1.4 support as soon as possible. This is reasonable, given that 2.0 has been out for a decade. When 2.0 first came out I was not a big fan, but it's become much more stable and useful over the past few years. However, ending GnuPG 1.4 support 'as soon as possible' is not the same as 'ending it now.' They want to minimize impact on end-users as much as possible. The 1.4 model still works better for certain things. I've never successfully managed to make pinentry work in a shell/screen session using my mailer, and I've never heard back from the GPG developers about allowing the main gnupg process to prompt for a pin directly, without needing the socket/window of pinentry. Both myself and Doug Barton have commented on this list to this effect. I consider this a blocking factor for moving to 2.0. When 1.4 support ends, expect an EOL date to be announced far in advance and a lot of help given to people who need to migrate to 2.0. See above. -Dan -- Dan Mahoney Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM Site: http://www.gushi.org --- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hello Sin ! Sin Trenton wrote: > The reason I ask is I have tried 2.x and even with various utf-8 settings, > signed mail fail verification approx 50% of the time for others as my client > does with theirs. English works fine, but it seems mail containing > Swedish/Danish/Czech letters (æ, ø, å, ä, ?, ?, ?, etc) get mucked up. I had some problems with non english characters too, but seems it depends on text translations on my own board. With your special characters above, my signature looks good here. - -- Laurent Jumet KeyID: 0xCFAF704C -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32) iHEEAREDADEFAlAd/qkqGGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucG9pbnRkZWNoYXQubmV0LzB4Q0ZB RjcwNEMuYXNjAAoJEPUdbaDPr3BMnfQAoNGVy7Y9SptPTkxPPJL9ut6O6WP0AKCO 6hmiZptSPGev3mViipbtB/yafg== =6a+y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
On 08/04/2012 03:26 PM, Sin Trenton wrote: > Is the plan to retire 1.x sometime in a not too distant future (I'm > not saying that I assume an actual time plan being set)? I am not a GnuPG developer. My information is not definitive. Take it with a grain of salt. That said, my understanding is the GnuPG developers wish to end 1.4 support as soon as possible. This is reasonable, given that 2.0 has been out for a decade. When 2.0 first came out I was not a big fan, but it's become much more stable and useful over the past few years. However, ending GnuPG 1.4 support 'as soon as possible' is not the same as 'ending it now.' They want to minimize impact on end-users as much as possible. When 1.4 support ends, expect an EOL date to be announced far in advance and a lot of help given to people who need to migrate to 2.0. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Future of GnuPG 1.x.x?
Hello everyone, My preferred flavour of GnuPG tends to be commandline 1.4.x (I use Ubuntu on one comp, but the others are WinXP), even if I also have Thunderbird/Enigmail, as well. It suits my needs and I have established routines for using it. However, while rummaging through the archiveson this leisurely Saturday, I came across two posts that made things a little unclear to me (quotes and links at the end of the mail). Is the plan to retire 1.x sometime in a not too distant future (I'm not saying that I assume an actual time plan being set)? One post talk about "put into runoff", the other "We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1 versions". The reason I ask is I have tried 2.x and even with various utf-8 settings, signed mail fail verification approx 50% of the time for others as my client does with theirs. English works fine, but it seems mail containing Swedish/Danish/Czech letters (æ, ø, å, ä, ?, ?, ?, etc) get mucked up. Anyway, just curious to know how the thoughts/plans ahead are. Best regards, Sin T. The two posts: == Retiring? == Mon May 14 23:19:03 CEST 2012 http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2012-May/044319.html "> In one of the recent, longer, threads, it was my understanding > that Werner said that the 1.4.x branch of GnuPG will not be > updated to have ECC capabilities, and may eventually be "put > into runoff" as it were. Werner, may I request that you confirm > or refute that? Right, that is the current plan. Maintaining two stable branches is extremely time and thus cost intensive." == Not retiring? == Tue Mar 27 11:20:14 CEST 2012 http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2012q1/000314.html "We will keep maintaining GnuPG-1 versions because they are very useful for small systems and for server based applications requiring only OpenPGP support." ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
