Hi Mihai,
Remember, i offered to sign your key if you come to Timisoara.
Cheers,
Radu
Mihai Felseghi wrote:
> Hello my name is Mihai Felseghi and I write this message to you
> because I didm't find a Debian Developer near me to sign my key ,so I
> don't know how to get it signed.So please tell
I live in Romania Arad county to be precised and I could not find a DD
near me and meet him in person that's why I wrotethis message to th
list to find out how I can get the key signed.
PS: And yes I want to become a DD and I already addopted 2 packages
and packaged the third.
On 6/22/06, Bas Wij
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 04:54:03PM +0300, Mihai Felseghi wrote:
> Hello my name is Mihai Felseghi and I write this message to you
> because I didm't find a Debian Developer near me to sign my key ,so I
> don't know how to get it signed.So please tell me what to do to get my
> key signed?
Hi,
It
Hello my name is Mihai Felseghi and I write this message to you
because I didm't find a Debian Developer near me to sign my key ,so I
don't know how to get it signed.So please tell me what to do to get my
key signed?
All the best!
Mihai Felseghi.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
Hereward Cooper wrote:
> > > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
> > >
> >
> > It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> > will
> > definatly be able to get one signed on
Hereward Cooper wrote:
> > > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
> > >
> >
> > It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> > will
> > definatly be able to get one signed on
> --
> Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had
strange
> http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the
> twist?
>
>
> --
, you've got THAT song in my head, which I took 3 years to get
ride of.
That was a _weird_ program.
Hereward
pgpf4cug
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
>
> You may want to join the debian-uk list: see
> --
> Scott James Remnant Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had
strange
> http://netsplit.com/ things happen? Are you going round the
> twist?
>
>
> --
, you've got THAT song in my head, which I took 3 years to get
ride of.
That was a _weird_ program.
Hereward
PGP sig
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
>
> You may want to join the debian-uk list: se
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
You may want to join the debian-uk list: see
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
You may want to join the debian-uk list: see
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo
once upon a time Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Hereward Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ GPG Key Signing ]
> > It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> will
> > definatly be able to get one signed on the deb
once upon a time Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Hereward Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ GPG Key Signing ]
> > It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> will
> > definatly be able to get one signed on the
Hereward Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ GPG Key Signing ]
> It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you will
> definatly be able to get one signed on the debian stand there.
>
Was that the one that was originally supposed to be in September? It&
Hereward Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ GPG Key Signing ]
> It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you will
> definatly be able to get one signed on the debian stand there.
>
Was that the one that was originally supposed to be in September? It&
> > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
> >
>
> It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> will
> definatly be able to get one signed on the debian stand there. Check
> out
>
> I'm going through the New Maintainer process, and am trying to get my
> GPG
> key signed by another developer.
>
> I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
>
It might be a long time away but there is a li
Hi there,
I'm going through the New Maintainer process, and am trying to get my GPG
key signed by another developer.
I've already registered and mailed a couple of people on the Key Signing
Co-ordination page, but haven't had any mails or replies yet.
Seeing as it's been a few weeks now, I thoug
> > I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> > in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
> >
>
> It might be a long time away but there is a linux expo in may, you
> will
> definatly be able to get one signed on the debian stand there. Check
> out
> I'm going through the New Maintainer process, and am trying to get my
> GPG
> key signed by another developer.
>
> I live in Birmingham, UK and work in London, UK, so arranging a meet
> in/around these two cities is usually possible at any time.
>
It might be a long time away but there is a l
Hi there,
I'm going through the New Maintainer process, and am trying to get my GPG
key signed by another developer.
I've already registered and mailed a couple of people on the Key Signing
Co-ordination page, but haven't had any mails or replies yet.
Seeing as it's been a few weeks now, I thou
>>"jae" == Jürgen A Erhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Email ID's have value. Some one comes up with, say, a
Manoj> First National Bank ID, and one trusts that ID, perhaps
Manoj> some informatiopn can be given out since the pe
>>"Ralf" == Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Jimmy> Would you have a problem with common nicknames such as Jimmy,
Jimmy> or would you need to see doc
>>"jae" == Jürgen A Erhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Email ID's have value. Some one comes up with, say, a
Manoj> First National Bank ID, and one trusts that ID, perhaps
Manoj> some informatiopn can be given out since the p
>>"Ralf" == Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralf> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Jimmy> Would you have a problem with common nicknames such as Jimmy,
Jimmy> or would you need to see do
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Email ID's have value. Some one comes up with, say, a
Manoj> First National Bank ID, and one trusts that ID, perhaps
Manoj> some informatiopn can be given out since the person works
Manoj> for the bank anyway.
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Email ID's have value. Some one comes up with, say, a
Manoj> First National Bank ID, and one trusts that ID, perhaps
Manoj> some informatiopn can be given out since the person works
Manoj> for the bank anyway
Ralf Treinen (2001-07-06 12:54:36 +0200) :
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Jimmy/James are acceptable social contractions/tranforms. I'd
>
> This might be the case for people with an American cultural background.
> People elsewhere in the world might ha
Ralf Treinen (2001-07-06 12:54:36 +0200) :
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Jimmy/James are acceptable social contractions/tranforms. I'd
>
> This might be the case for people with an American cultural background.
> People elsewhere in the world might h
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jimmy> I noticed in your protocol that you say the name on the IDs
> Jimmy> must match the name on the key. When I had my key signed, I
> Jimmy> showed ID that had th
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:06:49PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jimmy> I noticed in your protocol that you say the name on the IDs
> Jimmy> must match the name on the key. When I had my key signed, I
> Jimmy> showed ID that had t
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> The Web of Trust necessarily depends on participants acting
Steve> out of enlightened self-interest. IMHO, signing a public key
Steve> of somebody who's already lost the private key is much less of
Steve> a concern than signing th
>>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jimmy> I noticed in your protocol that you say the name on the IDs
Jimmy> must match the name on the key. When I had my key signed, I
Jimmy> showed ID that had the name "James Kaplowitz", which is my
Jimmy> legal name. On my key, I had t
>>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robbe> Re-read what I said: while I don't care about others signing
Robbe> additional ids, I consider ids not signed by the key highly dubious.
Robbe> Your compromiser can't add self-signed ids to a public key unless he
Robbe> holds the
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> The Web of Trust necessarily depends on participants acting
Steve> out of enlightened self-interest. IMHO, signing a public key
Steve> of somebody who's already lost the private key is much less of
Steve> a concern than signing t
>>"Jimmy" == Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jimmy> I noticed in your protocol that you say the name on the IDs
Jimmy> must match the name on the key. When I had my key signed, I
Jimmy> showed ID that had the name "James Kaplowitz", which is my
Jimmy> legal name. On my key, I had
>>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robbe> Re-read what I said: while I don't care about others signing
Robbe> additional ids, I consider ids not signed by the key highly dubious.
Robbe> Your compromiser can't add self-signed ids to a public key unless he
Robbe> holds th
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, it might be useful to have more of this
> second class of ignoramus running around posting their
> signed private keys to Usenet; perhaps this way, the
> PGP community will begin to seriously deal with the
> non-transitive nature of trust on a large scale.
H...
Steve Langasek wrote:
> Indeed, it might be useful to have more of this
> second class of ignoramus running around posting their
> signed private keys to Usenet; perhaps this way, the
> PGP community will begin to seriously deal with the
> non-transitive nature of trust on a large scale.
H..
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
> >> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
> >> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
> Stev
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
> >> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
> >> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
> Ste
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:07:17PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> >
> > manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to sign a key. i have it
~
> > available in HTML at
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
>
> Nice to see you called it 'Manoj's Singing-Protocol' ;)
cr
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:27:54AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:13:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > we should also require them to demonstrate a clear understanding of
> > PKI as part of the NM process.
>
> manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to s
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:07:17PM +0200, Eric Van Buggenhaut wrote:
> >
> > manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to sign a key. i have it
~
> > available in HTML at
> >
> > http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
>
> Nice to see you called it 'Manoj's Singing-Protocol' ;)
c
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:27:54AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:13:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > we should also require them to demonstrate a clear understanding of
> > PKI as part of the NM process.
>
> manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
Not to me (but obviously to you, so overall the web's value is
increa
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
Not to me (but obviously to you, so overall the web's value is
incre
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:13:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> When you see my signature on the key, it means that
> i) The owner had two forms of photo ID, or a passport and other
> possibly non-photo means of identification (of course, the
> identification documents may
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:13:34PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> When you see my signature on the key, it means that
> i) The owner had two forms of photo ID, or a passport and other
> possibly non-photo means of identification (of course, the
> identification documents may
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
>> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
>> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
Steve> Out of curiosity, under what circumstances do you for
>>"Samuel" == Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samuel> Well, then why not talk about "id signing" instead of "key
Samuel> signing" which exists but designates a completely different
Samuel> thing that also exists in GPG?
Because these procedures have been known as key signin
>>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
>> verified actually controls the email address and the secret pass
>> phrase adds no value to the web of trust?
Steve> Out of curiosity, under what circumstances do you fo
>>"Samuel" == Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samuel> Well, then why not talk about "id signing" instead of "key
Samuel> signing" which exists but designates a completely different
Samuel> thing that also exists in GPG?
Because these procedures have been known as key signi
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robbe> What additional security does this protocol offer over simple ID
> Robbe> checking? IOW, what problem does it solve?
> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identit
On 29/06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| Actually, the real flaw seems to be that my email assumed that
| the protocol was going to be used by people who had a modicum of
| inductive reasoning. The outline mentions just one ID in the key
| being verified and signed, and I assumed that anyone
>>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robbe> What additional security does this protocol offer over simple ID
Robbe> checking? IOW, what problem does it solve?
Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
verified actually controls the email address
>>"Samuel" == Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samuel> It has an enormous flaw: you do not sign a key, you sign an
Samuel> id. That means that checking for one e-mail address for being
Samuel> valid and signing all the ids is just bogus. You may use this
Samuel> protocol, but you hav
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robbe> What additional security does this protocol offer over simple ID
> Robbe> checking? IOW, what problem does it solve?
> Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identi
On 29/06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
| Actually, the real flaw seems to be that my email assumed that
| the protocol was going to be used by people who had a modicum of
| inductive reasoning. The outline mentions just one ID in the key
| being verified and signed, and I assumed that anyone
>>"Robbe" == Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robbe> What additional security does this protocol offer over simple ID
Robbe> checking? IOW, what problem does it solve?
Are you implying that ensuring the person whose identity you
verified actually controls the email address
>>"Samuel" == Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samuel> It has an enormous flaw: you do not sign a key, you sign an
Samuel> id. That means that checking for one e-mail address for being
Samuel> valid and signing all the ids is just bogus. You may use this
Samuel> protocol, but you ha
Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28/06, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> | http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
> |
> | it does have some weaknesses, but it is a lot stronger than the ``oh,
> | i've met you, i have checked your ID, and off we go''
What additional security
Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 28/06, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
>
> | http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
> |
> | it does have some weaknesses, but it is a lot stronger than the ``oh,
> | i've met you, i have checked your ID, and off we go''
What additional securit
On 28/06, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
| http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
|
| it does have some weaknesses, but it is a lot stronger than the ``oh,
| i've met you, i have checked your ID, and off we go''
|
| comments welcome.
It has an enormous flaw: you do not sign a key, you sign
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:13:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> we should also require them to demonstrate a clear understanding of
> PKI as part of the NM process.
manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to sign a key. i have it
available in HTML at
http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysig
On 28/06, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
| http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysign.html
|
| it does have some weaknesses, but it is a lot stronger than the ``oh,
| i've met you, i have checked your ID, and off we go''
|
| comments welcome.
It has an enormous flaw: you do not sign a key, you sign
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:13:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> we should also require them to demonstrate a clear understanding of
> PKI as part of the NM process.
manoj came up with a pretty good protocol to sign a key. i have it
available in HTML at
http://people.debian.org/~jaqque/keysi
68 matches
Mail list logo
