Re: [arch-general] GPG signature

2011-01-23 Thread Frank Thieme
Hi! On Sunday 23 January 2011 13:48:15 Karol Babioch wrote: > Have you actually the latest version of my key? I've updated it quite a > while ago, and plan to do so each year, as I've read somewhere that this > is good praxis, just in case you loose your private key / revocation > certificate. Ok

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature

2011-01-23 Thread Karol Babioch
Hi, Am 23.01.2011 12:45, schrieb Frank Thieme: > his signing key is expired... Have you actually the latest version of my key? I've updated it quite a while ago, and plan to do so each year, as I've read somewhere that this is good praxis, just in case you loose your private key / revocation cert

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature (was: GPT slower than MBR, although both are properly aligned?)

2011-01-23 Thread Frank Thieme
On Sunday 23 January 2011 10:42:29 Guillaume ALAUX wrote: > I imported both Karol's signature and yours and Evo says the signature > is valid. It just complains as I haven't signed nor set any trust on it > but this is the right behavior. Your's is "The signature is valid, but the key's validity i

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature

2011-01-23 Thread Sebastian Schwarz
On 2011-01-23 at 11:07 +0100, Karol Babioch wrote: > Am 23.01.2011 10:42, schrieb Guillaume ALAUX: > > I imported both Karol's signature and yours and Evo says the > > signature is valid. It just complains as I haven't signed nor > > set any trust on it but this is the right behavior. > > thanks fo

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature

2011-01-23 Thread Benoit Myard
Ah. But this is perfectly normal. I suggest the complaining ops reread the PGP manual: http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN346 On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 17:07:15 +0700, Karol Babioch wrote: Hi, Am 23.01.2011 10:42, schrieb Guillaume ALAUX: I imported both Karol's signature and yours

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature

2011-01-23 Thread Karol Babioch
Hi, Am 23.01.2011 10:42, schrieb Guillaume ALAUX: > I imported both Karol's signature and yours and Evo says the signature > is valid. It just complains as I haven't signed nor set any trust on it > but this is the right behavior. thanks for your positive reply, I already thought of a bad setup h

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature (was: GPT slower than MBR, although both are properly aligned?)

2011-01-23 Thread Guillaume ALAUX
On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 09:03 +0100, Frank Thieme wrote: > Hi! > > Maybe it's just me, but all your messages in this thread have a bad > signature... > > Bye...Frank Hello, I imported both Karol's signature and yours and Evo says the signature is valid. It just complains as I haven't signed nor

Re: [arch-general] GPG signature (was: GPT slower than MBR, although both are properly aligned?)

2011-01-23 Thread Frank Thieme
Hi! Maybe it's just me, but all your messages in this thread have a bad signature... Bye...Frank signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.