13.05.2012 14:31, Andrei POPESCU kirjoitti:
On Vi, 11 mai 12, 17:49:30, Phil Dobbin wrote:
on the strength of that message, Slavko, it gave me great pleasure to
import sign your key :-)
Don't sign other keys unless you have met the owner in person.
Kind regards,
Andrei
But if you
On Du, 13 mai 12, 15:41:52, Phil Dobbin wrote:
As somebody else posted on this subject some time ago (maybe a week
ago; this thread has been limping on for a long time) it helps one
identify participants on the list whose views seem to lucid, practical
knowledgeable. I've found it
On Vi, 11 mai 12, 17:49:30, Phil Dobbin wrote:
on the strength of that message, Slavko, it gave me great pleasure to
import sign your key :-)
Don't sign other keys unless you have met the owner in person.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
On Sb, 12 mai 12, 09:25:44, Slavko wrote:
* It was a lot of searching for me to get MUA for Windows with GPG
support (early mentioned Thunderbird and Enigmail) and i see no others
equivalents exists (or only very old or commercial).
Claws Mail and Sylpheed will do it.
+1 on everything
On Sb, 12 mai 12, 01:45:37, Jochen Spieker wrote:
[snip]
+1
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
11.05.2012 19:53, Chris Bannister kirjoitti:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:18:02PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
Whilst the above is true, it's also true that inline signing isn't
going away soon because of certain companies reticence about
implementing it correctly or at all.
Where it refers to
On Saturday 12 May 2012 08:25:44 Slavko wrote:
[snip]
I will accept that some (many???) people may htink that the presence of
Slavko's name fulfils no useful purpose other than supplying an ego-trip for
him.
But for me it had a use. I know (of?) Slavko from another list. I would
certainly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/12 12:31, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 11 mai 12, 17:49:30, Phil Dobbin wrote:
on the strength of that message, Slavko, it gave me great
pleasure to import sign your key :-)
Don't sign other keys unless you have met the owner in
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 03:02:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
If that was the strategy everybody adopted with PGP, there'd be very
few, if any, keys signed, ever.
This *is* the strategy that most people use for PGP.
Thanks for the advice but I think I'll pass.
You are entitled to maintain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/12 15:05, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 03:02:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
If that was the strategy everybody adopted with PGP, there'd be
very few, if any, keys signed, ever.
This *is* the strategy that most people use
Hi,
Dňa Sun, 13 May 2012 14:35:30 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
andreimpope...@gmail.com napísal:
On Sb, 12 mai 12, 09:25:44, Slavko wrote:
* It was a lot of searching for me to get MUA for Windows with GPG
support (early mentioned Thunderbird and Enigmail) and i see no
others equivalents
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 03:02:02PM +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/05/12 12:31, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 11 mai 12, 17:49:30, Phil Dobbin wrote:
on the strength of that message, Slavko, it gave me great
pleasure to import sign
On 12.5.2012 2:45, Jochen Spieker wrote:
My main reason for signing public e-mails is to invite people to encrypt
their e-mails to me. Signing is the easiest way to express that I (know
how to) use PGP/GPG and that I prefer encrypted communication. In my
opinion, the question is not why we
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 08:59 +0300, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
the question is not why we should encrypt our communication,
but why we should /not/
I encrypt some of my communication by openPGP too. No doubt about it,
there are valid reasons to encrypt some emails. But signing emails to an
open
Hi,
Dňa Sat, 12 May 2012 12:36:25 +1000 Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com napísal:
Paraphrase yes. Useful analogy I don't believe so.
from your point of view... But from my point it is analogy.
A better analogy would be:-
Is the post reduced in value if Tony's was name was
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
I wasn't thinking of Enigmail/Mozilla, but Microsoft. Microsoft's
software doesn't produce PGP/MIME sigs and their reading of same is
broken. Or at least was last time I had to use any of their software.
MS Exchange at least
--- On Fri, 5/11/12, Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com
wrote:
Paraphrase yes. Useful analogy I don't believe so.
A better analogy would be:-
Is the post reduced in value if Tony's was name was not
added to the
sender field?
The answer is yes.
Not necessarily. If
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 01:43 -0700, T Elcor wrote:
If one still feels strongly that signed emails should not be used on
this list, one may want to suggest such a change to the Debian Code of
Conduct.
I'm against general signing, but I guess we should be free to use it, if
we wont use it and
On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:01:19 +0100
Jon Dowland j...@debian.org wrote:
Hello Jon,
MS Exchange at least recognises PGP/MIME as being something: it shows
a little signed icon against such mails.
An improvement on OE, certainly. That used to see the PGP/MIME signed
message and treat the text
On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:31:50 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:27 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 04:49:36 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:59:25PM +, Camaleón wrote:
mode remember on
We once faced a problem with faked posts in
Selling guns?
Apologize! Context! Selling guns to the wrong people, with a bad
intention is unethically, but it isn't unethically to sell guns per se.
I don't own weapons myself, but I've got no problems with people who
learned how to use and not to use a weapon secure and ethically. I'm
able
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:40:31PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Selling guns?
Apologize! Context! Selling guns to the wrong people, with a bad
intention is unethically, but it isn't unethically to sell guns per se.
I don't own weapons myself, but I've got no problems with people who
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:02 +, Camaleón wrote:
I don't know why is that you smile. For the people involved it was not
funny at all :-(
If you know about tics than it shouldn't be an issue. I'm an idiot
myself and once I met another highly gifted idiot. He was a stutterer.
This was an
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:40:31 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Ralf, be very cautious when quoting...
Selling guns?
What the hell are you (if that were you) talking about?
Apologize! Context! Selling guns to the wrong people, with a bad
intention is unethically, but it isn't unethically to sell
On Sat, 12 May 2012 05:52:28 -0500
Indulekha indule...@theunworthy.com wrote:
Hello Indulekha,
Please don't troll.
The phrrase selling guns doesn't even appear in the email you're
It did; You just saw the follow-up before the message it was replying
to. Exactly the same happened here.
--
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:18:11PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 05:52:28 -0500
Indulekha indule...@theunworthy.com wrote:
Hello Indulekha,
Please don't troll.
The phrrase selling guns doesn't even appear in the email you're
It did; You just saw the follow-up before
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:21:01 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:02 +, Camaleón wrote:
I don't know why is that you smile. For the people involved it was not
funny at all :-(
If you know about tics than it shouldn't be an issue.
(...)
Ralf, I don't know how to tell
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:18:11 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 05:52:28 -0500
Indulekha indule...@theunworthy.com wrote:
Hello Indulekha,
Please don't troll.
The phrrase selling guns doesn't even appear in the email you're
It did; You just saw the follow-up before the
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:40:35AM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:21:01 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:02 +, Camaleón wrote:
I don't know why is that you smile. For the people involved it was not
funny at all :-(
If you know about tics than it
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:46:26 + (UTC)
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
I received first the second message (his reply to himself) and
because he removed the name of the person who wrote the cited text,
the message was unreferenced at all.
Without attribution, context and
On Sat, 12 May 2012 06:59:29 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:40:35AM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:21:01 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:02 +, Camaleón wrote:
I don't know why is that you smile. For the people involved it was
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 06:59:29AM -0500, Indulekha wrote:
Tourette's doesn't compel people to send obscenities via email, it's
just verbal and gestures. You got trolled.
Please take this off-list. It's off-topic and adds zero value to
the intended purpose of this list.
Thanks,
Roger
--
On 05/12/2012 08:36 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 06:59:29AM -0500, Indulekha wrote:
Tourette's doesn't compel people to send obscenities via email, it's
just verbal and gestures. You got trolled.
Please take this off-list. It's off-topic and adds zero value to
the intended
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:18:14PM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 06:59:29 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:40:35AM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:21:01 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:02 +, Camaleón wrote:
I
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 06:28 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
Ah, ok. Yes, I do see it now.
Apologies to Ralf!
No problem, I've got to apologize, since I wrote to much unneeded text.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:04 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:18:14PM +, Camaleón wrote:
Tourette's doesn't compel people to send obscenities via email, it's
just verbal and gestures. You got trolled.
You're completely wrong.
But you can read and learn (from
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:07:04AM -0500, Indulekha wrote:
What, so now the *lack* of a described symptom is proof it exists?
Nowhere in that article does it say that Tourette's makes people
write obscenities. And that's with good reason, because it doesn't.
*Please*, take this offtopic
On Sat, 12 May 2012 08:51:44 +0200, Ralf wrote in message
1336805504.2741.26.camel@precise:
We should create a world of trust, instead of hanging on conspiracy
theories.
..theories are harmless, until they become recipes for e.g.
Kristallnächt-2.0 on 9/11.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:37:35PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:39:49 + (UTC)
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
Enigmail does it with no user intervention.
I don't use Enigmail, but I'd place a small wager that it can be set up
to either pull
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:32:25PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, the OP signs his mail to a list. I would guess that no web of trust
exists between him and 99.9% of the list members.
What is the benefit of such a signature?
I don't know Phil Dobbin, I haven't ever met him and I
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:57:45PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
That is certainly not the way mailing lists work, so causing a block of
some 400 characters to be sent to each and every subscriber is pure
self-indulgence, on the scale of insisting on sending HTML-formatted
mail. On balance,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/12 07:45, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:32:25PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, the OP signs his mail to a list. I would guess that no web of
trust exists between him and 99.9% of the list members.
What is the
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 04:14:12PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 15:27, Phil Dobbin wrote:
Cheers,
Phil...
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:32:25PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 17:16, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:34 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Hello Ralf,
This resulted in Valid signature, but cannot verify sender (Phil
Dobbin
On 05/11/2012 08:34 AM, Rob Owens wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:32:25PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 17:16, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:34 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Hello Ralf,
This resulted in Valid signature, but cannot
On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:16:33 -0400
Jeremy T. Bouse jeremy.bo...@undergrid.net wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
those that wish to do so. Inline simply generates too much needless
noise and is a method that's at least 10 years out dated since the
PGP/MIME standard was adopted.
Whilst the above is true,
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:16:33 -0400
Jeremy T. Bouse jeremy.bo...@undergrid.net wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
those that wish to do so. Inline simply generates too much needless
noise and is a method that's at least 10 years out dated
On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:47:04 +0100
Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
Hello Brad,
Whilst the above is true, it's also true that inline signing isn't
going away soon because of certain companies reticence about
implementing it correctly or at all.
Where it refers to the PGP/MIME standard,
On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:57:45 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
I've learned a lot about GPG signing during the last few days. I can see
there are benefits where the recipient needs to be absolutely certain
that the sender is known to him.
Yes.
And also the sender wants to ensure his/her posts
On 11/05/12 13:23, Rob Owens wrote:
Or you could manually download all the public keys that you're interested in.
On this list, that equates to zero. Which is why all those who sign
their messages are wasting their time on an ego-trip.
--
Tony van der Hoff| mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org
On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:37:35 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:39:49 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
Enigmail does it with no user intervention.
I don't use Enigmail, but I'd place a small wager that it can be set up
to either pull public
Ahoj,
Dňa Fri, 11 May 2012 16:26:30 +0100 Tony van der Hoff
t...@vanderhoff.org napísal:
On 11/05/12 13:23, Rob Owens wrote:
Or you could manually download all the public keys that you're
interested in.
On this list, that equates to zero. Which is why all those who sign
their messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/12 16:48, Slavko wrote:
Ahoj,
Dňa Fri, 11 May 2012 16:26:30 +0100 Tony van der Hoff
t...@vanderhoff.org napísal:
On 11/05/12 13:23, Rob Owens wrote:
Or you could manually download all the public keys that you're
interested in.
On
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:59:25PM +, Camaleón wrote:
mode remember on
We once faced a problem with faked posts in another mailing list. There
was a user (with a severe Tourette Syndrom) that sent messages with the
And you could tell this from his/her posts?, amazing!
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 03:18:02PM +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
Whilst the above is true, it's also true that inline signing isn't
going away soon because of certain companies reticence about
implementing it correctly or at all.
Where it refers to the PGP/MIME standard, of course.
Even if
On Sat, 12 May 2012 04:53:12 +1200
Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
Hello Chris,
Even if Enigmail made PGP/MIME the default, or even better remove
inline signing completely?
I wasn't thinking of Enigmail/Mozilla, but Microsoft. Microsoft's
software doesn't produce PGP/MIME
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 19:09 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 19:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 04:49 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
And you could tell this from his/her posts?, amazing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 04:49 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
And you could tell this from his/her posts?, amazing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome
Hobby-psychologist are able to do this. The less differential diagnosis
you know, the easier it is to defame. The ICE + DSM together
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 19:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 04:49 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
And you could tell this from his/her posts?, amazing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome
Hobby-psychologist are able to do this. The less differential diagnosis
you
On Sat, 12 May 2012 04:49:36 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:59:25PM +, Camaleón wrote:
mode remember on
We once faced a problem with faked posts in another mailing list. There
was a user (with a severe Tourette Syndrom) that sent messages with the
And you
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 17:27 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 04:49:36 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:59:25PM +, Camaleón wrote:
mode remember on
We once faced a problem with faked posts in another mailing list. There
was a user (with a severe
On Fri, 11 May 2012 19:11:52 +0200, Ralf wrote in message
1336756312.8142.14.camel@precise:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 19:09 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 19:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 04:49 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
And you could tell this
Jeremy T. Bouse:
On 05/11/2012 08:34 AM, Rob Owens wrote:
If I someday want to send an encrypted message to the Ralf that I know
(debian-user Ralf), I can do it. For me, knowing Ralf's personal
identity is not as important as knowing his online identity because our
relationship is online.
On 12/05/12 01:48, Slavko wrote:
Ahoj,
Dňa Fri, 11 May 2012 16:26:30 +0100 Tony van der Hoff
t...@vanderhoff.org napísal:
On 11/05/12 13:23, Rob Owens wrote:
Or you could manually download all the public keys that you're
interested in.
On this list, that equates to zero. Which is why
On 10/05/12 15:27, Phil Dobbin wrote:
Cheers,
Phil...
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to
interpret this.
-
OpenPGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/12 16:14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to
interpret this.
On 10/05/12 16:45, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 10/05/12 16:14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to
interpret this.
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:45 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 10/05/12 16:14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to
interpret this.
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:49:12PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:45 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 10/05/12 16:14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about
in the other thread.
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Alternatively, should I just ignore the signature, in which case why
is the sender polluting the list with useless crap?
That's the problem.
For Evolution all mails look ok. Below some mails there's a button that
notifies me, when an
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:55 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:49:12PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:45 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
On 10/05/12 16:14, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:12 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, this message was signed.
Having recently installed enigmail, to see what all the fuss is about in
the other thread. I find I'm at a loss to understand how to interpret
this.
(...)
A093C263 gpg: Can't check signature: public
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:45:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Alternatively, should I just ignore the signature, in which case why is
the sender polluting the list with useless crap?
That's the problem.
(...)
And what's _what you
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:59:34PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:55 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 05:49:12PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:45 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
With Evolution I can't. I need your keyserver and your
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:03:56 + (UTC)
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:12 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Am I expected to go to some keyserver to find the sender's public
key?
It should be done automatically.
Only if GPG is set up to do so.
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:34 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Hello Ralf,
This resulted in Valid signature, but cannot verify sender (Phil
Dobbin bukowskis...@gmail.com):
Because there's no web of trust involving people that both you and the
keyholder know.
--
Regards
On 10/05/12 17:16, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:34 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Hello Ralf,
This resulted in Valid signature, but cannot verify sender (Phil
Dobbin bukowskis...@gmail.com):
Because there's no web of trust involving people that
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:18:04 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:03:56 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:12 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Am I expected to go to some keyserver to find the sender's public
key?
It
Hello Tony,
Tony van der Hoff t...@vanderhoff.org wrote:
What is the benefit of such a signature?
Those who know him now can verify the signature. In addition, if at
any later stage someone else claims to have posted this message, the
OP can prove that it was indeed him who posted it. Everybody
On 10/05/12 17:39, Camaleón wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:18:04 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:03:56 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:12 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Am I expected to go to some keyserver to find
On 10/05/12 17:40, Claudius Hubig wrote:
Hello Tony,
However, you are absolutely free to ignore the signature if it is of
no value to you and most clients will even hide it by default (or
show a small button).
Thunderbird doesn't appear to. However, having activated enigmail, and
linked it
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:42:55 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 17:39, Camaleón wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:18:04 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:03:56 + (UTC) Camaleón noela...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:12 +0100, Tony van
On 10/05/12 17:54, Camaleón wrote:
you don't have to do nothing
A double negative, Camaleón? ;)
You have to do something?
--
Tony van der Hoff| mailto:t...@vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:59:41 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 17:54, Camaleón wrote:
you don't have to do nothing
A double negative, Camaleón? ;)
In Spanish sounded good O:-)
You have to do something?
Configure Enigmail.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 17:32 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
So, the OP signs his mail to a list. I would guess that no web of trust
exists between him and 99.9% of the list members.
+1
That's what I try to explain.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 18:40 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
Hello Tony,
Tony van der Hoff t...@vanderhoff.org wrote:
What is the benefit of such a signature?
Those who know him now can verify the signature. In addition, if at
any later stage someone else claims to have posted this message,
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:07 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:45:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Alternatively, should I just ignore the signature, in which case
why is
the sender polluting the list with useless crap?
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:40:42PM +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
Hello Tony,
Tony van der Hoff t...@vanderhoff.org wrote:
What is the benefit of such a signature?
Those who know him now can verify the signature. In addition, if at
any later stage someone else claims to have posted this
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:25:39PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 18:40 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
Hello Tony,
Tony van der Hoff t...@vanderhoff.org wrote:
What is the benefit of such a signature?
Those who know him now can verify the signature. In addition, if
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:39:49 + (UTC)
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Camaleón,
Enigmail does it with no user intervention.
I don't use Enigmail, but I'd place a small wager that it can be set up
to either pull public keys automatically or manually. What the default
is, IDK.
--
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:32:25 +0100
Tony van der Hoff t...@vanderhoff.org wrote:
Hello Tony,
What is the benefit of such a signature?
Read Roger Leigh's message on just that subject. It explains things
well. No point in me saying the same thing again.
--
Regards _
/ )
On Thu, 10 May 2012 19:18:53 +0200
Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
Hello Ralf,
Exactly and this is valid for the majority on mailing lists.
True, but that's not the point. I always PGP sign list mail because it
shows a single source, making it harder for somebody to spoof as me
On Thu, 10 May 2012 19:18:53 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:07 +, Camaleón wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2012
17:45:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 16:14 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Alternatively, should I just ignore the signature, in which case
On 10/05/12 18:25, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
And what is the benefit of this on an open mailing list?
To ensure that somebody called or didn't call somebody else names, gave
right or wrong information? IMO this is infantile. Don't get me wrong!
I'm not against signing, if other people wish to do. It
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 18:57 +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
On 10/05/12 18:25, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
And what is the benefit of this on an open mailing list?
To ensure that somebody called or didn't call somebody else names, gave
right or wrong information? IMO this is infantile. Don't get me
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:32 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
--
Patageometry, n.:
The study of those mathematical properties that are invariant
under brain transplants.
http://chubig.net telnet nightfall.org 4242
Actually, depending on the editor one uses to
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 08:01:51PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:32 -0500, Indulekha wrote:
--
Patageometry, n.:
The study of those mathematical properties that are invariant
under brain transplants.
http://chubig.net telnet
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
I've learned a lot about GPG signing during the last few days. I can see
there are benefits where the recipient needs to be absolutely certain
that the sender is known to him.
Yes. Or that the sender belongs to a certain group, for which an
On 11/05/12 07:29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
I've learned a lot about GPG signing during the last few days. I can see
there are benefits where the recipient needs to be absolutely certain
that the sender is known to him.
Yes. Or that
99 matches
Mail list logo
