On 06/11/2014 4:55 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Thanks. I imagine that will also apply to the Windows port too.
>
>
>
> At present, we do not recommend using GnuPG 2.1 with Enigmail. There
> are a couple of problems with it which we believe will seriously impact
> many users' experiences.
>
Thanks. I imagine that will also apply to the Windows port too.
At present, we do not recommend using GnuPG 2.1 with Enigmail. There
are a couple of problems with it which we believe will seriously impact
many users' experiences.
All new software has bugs, and GnuPG 2.1 is no exception. We
On 06/11/2014 2:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> On 11/06/2014 06:11 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>
> I hear this morning that there is a new GnuPG 2.1.0 version which is
> quite different from the 2.0.x versions. Will Enigmail continue to work
> with this new version?
>
>
> Yes, i've been running
On 11/06/2014 06:11 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> I hear this morning that there is a new GnuPG 2.1.0 version which is
> quite different from the 2.0.x versions. Will Enigmail continue to work
> with this new version?
Yes, i've been running enigmail 1.7.2 with the series of GnuPG 2.1.0
betas for over a
> I hear this morning that there is a new GnuPG 2.1.0 version which is
> quite different from the 2.0.x versions. Will Enigmail continue to
> work with this new version?
I expect the answer is 'yes', but I haven't tried it yet. Give me an
hour and I'll have a definitive answer for you.
I hear this morning that there is a new GnuPG 2.1.0 version which is
quite different from the 2.0.x versions. Will Enigmail continue to work
with this new version?
Regards,
Bob
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
enigmail-users
