On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:07:09 +0200, Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> Again, not a devotee problem.
> Just for information, I get an error message when voting with icedove
> and the enigmail extension (see the text at the end of the message).
> The error w
Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> Again, not a devotee problem.
Just for information, I get an error message when voting with
icedove and the enigmail extension (see the text at the end of
the message).
The error was not clear at all for me. All I did was to clic on
the "encryption" and "sign"
Hi
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:21:48 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of your ballots (msg00250) did pass the gpg check -- but
> you must have voted with the same ballot, since devotee says:
>Failure: The signature on the message, though valid, has been seen
>be
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:02:18 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Maybe I read RFC 3156 wrong, but I think it says exactly what I
> sent:
> 6.1. RFC 1847 Encapsulation
>In [2], it is stated that the data is first signed as a
>multipart/signature body, and then encrypted to fo
On Sunday 01 April 2007 23:19, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe
> > that's what you were thinking about.
>
> AFAIK, they are.
Policy URLs are not accepted, that's what I was thi
Scribit Steve Langasek dies 01/04/2007 hora 13:09:
> Hrm, is there really an RFC that specifies encryption before signing?
AFAIK, the RFC specifies how to build an encrypted MIME body and a
signed body. When you want both, you can either store a signed body in
the encrypted one, or an encrypted an
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe that's
> what you were thinking about.
AFAIK, they are.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:04:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the messa
Hi
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:04:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the most creative and weird action I have seen in the
> last few elections.
>
> You send an encrypted mail, which was not itself signed. This
> caused the vote to be rejected. Now, the b
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was not
>> signed; which means there is no information about who is sen
Hello
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:15:40 +0200
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> > seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signat
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature
> won't verify, because I deleted the votes):
You had your message signed, then put the sign
Hello
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was
> not signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
> the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll po
On Thursday 29 March 2007 06.24:52 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:52:33 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > You do not handle signing subkeys?
> >
> > What makes you think th
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:23:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>> Hi On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:23:28 +0200
>> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If you encrypt to yourself, how is the voting syste
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:23:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:23:28 +0200
> Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you encrypt to yourself, how is the voting system supposed to
>> decrypt it?
> It was encrypted for two keys, both of them can decryp
Hi
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:23:28 +0200
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you encrypt to yourself, how is the voting system supposed to decrypt
> it?
It was encrypted for two keys, both of them can decrypt it.
> You also encrypted to the key that was generated for this vote, which
> loo
* Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-29 21:23:28 +0200]:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:00:19AM +0200, Michal ?iha? wrote:
> > Hi
> > >
> > > __> gpg --homedir=. --keyring debian-keyring.gpg --keyring
> > > debian-keyring.pgp --with-colons --list-keys 0x05C78623
> > > pub:-:1024:17:DC3552E8
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:00:19AM +0200, Michal ?iha? wrote:
> Hi
> >
> > __> gpg --homedir=. --keyring debian-keyring.gpg --keyring
> > debian-keyring.pgp --with-colons --list-keys 0x05C78623
> > pub:-:1024:17:DC3552E836E75604:2004-01-10:::-:Michal ?x8ciha?x99 <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]>::scESC:
Hi
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:52:38 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems to indicate that the key was not in the keyring.
> > 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID 43C42E9B, created 2007-03-09
>
> __> gpg --homedir=. --keyring debian-keyring.gpg --keyring
> debian-keyring.pgp --
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:52:33 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > You do not handle signing subkeys?
>
> What makes you think that? Any key that is used needs to be
> in the debian keyring, is all.
I just che
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:28:04PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:47:09 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Probably part of the problem is that I haven't yet figured out the
> > correct way to do PGP/MIME in Gnus (mostly because I haven't looked
> > very ha
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:47:09 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Probably part of the problem is that I haven't yet figured out the
> correct way to do PGP/MIME in Gnus (mostly because I haven't looked
> very hard).
Here is what I use (I am using emacs23, but this should work
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The solution is to use a MYA that does properly do PGP/MIME --
> or send in an encrypted ballot, which is base64 encoded, I think, and
> should not trigger ther helpful MTA enroute.
I had to fall back on doing an encrypted ballot because I
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:52:33 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The issue there was using a signing key not in the debian
>> keyring. If you are doing the same, please stop.
> You do not handle signing subkeys?
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The issue there was using a signing key not in the debian
> keyring. If you are doing the same, please stop.
You do not handle signing subkeys? That would mean one has to add that
dreaded "!" to the keyid, so as to make gpg not use any subke
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, in either case, something intervened along the way (some
MTA) and protected the accented char after you had sent the mail.
The solution is to use a MYA that does properly do PGP/MIME --
or send in an encrypted ballot, which is bas
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:05:27 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bart Martens wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 07:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> The relation between Rejects and Voters is currently the highest
>>> we ever had. I'm just asking whether
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:31:10 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:56:23 +0200
> Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 07:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> > The relation between Rejects and Voters is currently the highest
>> > we ev
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:12:55 +0200, Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Le mercredi 28 mars 2007 09:31, Michal Čihař a écrit :
>> Same here, tried encrypted first, it failed (see bellow), then
>> unencrypted and it worked fine.
> Precisly the same issue here.
The issue there was
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:12:55PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le mercredi 28 mars 2007 09:31, Michal ??iha?? a écrit :
> > Same here, tried encrypted first, it failed (see bellow), then
> > unencrypted and it worked fine.
>
> Precisly the same issue here.
> It has been reported to work on mutt
Le mercredi 28 mars 2007 09:31, Michal Čihař a écrit :
> Same here, tried encrypted first, it failed (see bellow), then
> unencrypted and it worked fine.
Precisly the same issue here.
It has been reported to work on mutt, and it failed here with kmail.
Is the crypt+sign mail format standard ?
Ro
Hi
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:56:23 +0200
Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 07:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > The relation between Rejects and Voters is currently the highest we
> > ever had. I'm just asking whether we need some technical improvement
> > here becaus
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bart Martens wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 07:43 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
The relation between Rejects and Voters is currently the highest we
ever had. I'm just asking whether we need some technical improvement
here because I personally add a count of three to the reject
34 matches
Mail list logo
