-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06.02.15 00:33, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version
of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support
altogether. :)
I'd formulate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 11:01 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
The question is not so much the effort - you won't get a figure
from me. The main concern is code complexity, which makes things
hard to read, understand,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 16:46, Philip Jackson wrote:
On 04/02/15 18:13, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
My plan is as follows: * Enigmail 1.8.x will still support GnuPG
1.4.x. However, if Enigmail detects GnuPG 1.4.x, a message will
be displayed saying that GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 09:49, Besnik Bleta wrote:
Hello,
There’s a typo in enigmail.dtd:
specifiy
instead of specify.
I'd say you looked at some older version of enigmail.dtd? I cannot
find this on master; I think it was fixed already.
- -Patric
On 05/02/15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are shipping
2.x
by default, removing 1.x support is premature. I should add that I'm using
that
transition as a bellwether of sorts, as I *think* that seeing this transition
will also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello,
If there is a problem with Kleopatra you may instead use GPA
Blind users cannot use GPA or Kleopatra, though.
Sebastian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1 - GPGrelay v0.962
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
What you're proposing will create a whole new set of support
problems, starting with the return of You must use the packaged
version! on Linux, and similar platforms.
No, this requirement will not start
On 2/5/2015 3:49 PM, Sebastian Rose-Indorf wrote:
Hello,
If there is a problem with Kleopatra you may instead use GPA
Blind users cannot use GPA or Kleopatra, though.
Sebastian
What software do blind users use?
--
David
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hello,
There’s a typo in enigmail.dtd:
specifiy
instead of specify.
Cheers,
Besnik
___
enigmail-users mailing list
enigmail-users@enigmail.net
To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here:
Thanks for the link. Even though I know how to use pgp on windows. There
are great topics covered in there for example the information about
Threat Modeling. Definitely will put that in my saved link list.
Pascal Winkelmann
Am 04.02.2015 um 21:02 schrieb Samir Nassar:
In response to some issues
On 2/5/15 1:03 PM, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
What you're proposing will create a whole new set of support
problems, starting with the return of You must use the packaged
version! on Linux, and similar platforms.
No, this requirement will not start the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
What software do blind users use?
For example - on Windows - good old WinPT and GPGrelay with GnuPG
v1.
Sebastian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1 - GPGrelay v0.962
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are
shipping 2.x by default, removing 1.x support is premature.
This would be a problem if the OSes that ship Enigmail had no way to
make GnuPG 2 a dependency. Virtually all of them do, so I don't see the
problem.
I get the
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work with/work around that it
justifies taking on these burdens now, rather than some time down
the road when more people have already transitioned?
Ah, the broccoli argument.
I hate
On 2/5/15 3:08 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work with/work around that it
justifies taking on these burdens now, rather than some time down
the road when more people have already transitioned?
If the wizard takes users to 2.x then I cannot see an issue. With old equipment
can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
Ian
On 06/02/15 10:08, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work
On 2/5/15 3:03 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are
shipping 2.x by default, removing 1.x support is premature.
This would be a problem if the OSes that ship Enigmail had no way to
make GnuPG 2 a dependency. Virtually all of them do,
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support altogether. :)
___
enigmail-users mailing list
enigmail-users@enigmail.net
Thanks Doug,
Ian
On 06/02/15 10:33, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support altogether. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 17:11, Koszta Dániel wrote:
I'd say you looked at some older version of enigmail.dtd? I
cannot find this on master; I think it was fixed already.
It appears to be present in some files.
$ grep -Rl 'specifiy' .
It appears to be present in some files.
$ grep -Rl 'specifiy' .
./lang/pt-BR/enigmail.dtd
./lang/fi-FI/enigmail.dtd
./lang/ar/enigmail.dtd
I'd say you looked at some older version of enigmail.dtd? I cannot
find this on master; I think it was fixed already.
-Patric
Would it be worthwhile having enigmail pass straight to GnuPG 2.1 ?
No.
GnuPG 2.1 seems like it should be a minor revision (after all, it’s just a .1
increment), but quite a lot has changed: the addition of ECC, the new keybox
format, changing how supporting programs work, and more. Like any
On 05/02/2015 6:55 am, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
On 04.02.15 20:16, Bob Henson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer
On 04/02/2015 8:15 pm, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 11:16 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it
On 04/02/2015 19:20, Andreas Hirsch wrote:
Bob Henson schrieb am 2015-02-04 um 20:16:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win
On 05/02/2015 10:52 am, Werner Koch wrote:
If there is a problem with Kleopatra you may instead use GPA - just do
not install Kleopatra, use a registry setting, or delete the Kleopatra
binary. Except for some minor things GPA provide the same functionally
(called the UI-Server) and in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/4/2015 12:13, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
So I have gone into my Enigmail preferences and I've set the override
option
On 2/4/15 11:01 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
The question is not so much the effort - you won't get a figure from me.
The main concern is code complexity, which makes things hard to read,
understand, develop, improve or fix.
Yes, I get that. :) But without some sort of quantification it's
28 matches
Mail list logo
