Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3
Am Dienstag 21 November 2023 15:28:46 schrieb Aleksander Machniak: > >> - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and > >> sender's keys. Potentially the sender has encrypted the message for themselves, this would explain why there are two potential decryption keys that you both do not have. Try an additional -v to see more about the message structure. Maybe v2.3 is just more informative here. -- https://intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3 Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3
On 21.11.2023 14:59, Ingo Klöcker wrote: When I do --decrypt on an encrypted email message (having only recipient's private+public key in the keyring): - v2.2 outputs one NO_SECKEY line referring the recipient's key Referring to the recipient's key? I understood that you do have the recipient's key but that you lack the sender's key. Yes, that's right. I don't need a sender's key to decrypt a message. - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and sender's keys. Is this expected behavior change? Maybe not, but 2.3.3 is more than 2 years old. Current is 2.4.3. That's what I have on Alma Linux 9 by default. I'll take a look for an update. -- Aleksander Machniak Kolab Groupware Developer[https://kolab.org] Roundcube Webmail Developer [https://roundcube.net] PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3
On Dienstag, 21. November 2023 12:05:39 CET Aleksander Machniak wrote: > I just noticed a difference on how NO_SECKEY status is used between > 2.2.x and 2.3.3. > > When I do --decrypt on an encrypted email message (having only > recipient's private+public key in the keyring): > - v2.2 outputs one NO_SECKEY line referring the recipient's key Referring to the recipient's key? I understood that you do have the recipient's key but that you lack the sender's key. > - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and > sender's keys. > > Is this expected behavior change? Maybe not, but 2.3.3 is more than 2 years old. Current is 2.4.3. Regards, Ingo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users