Should I be confident about using gpg's return code 0 in a script (run
automatically by at or cron) to make encrypted backups? Example:
cd /backup/directory
tar cf user1.tar /home/user1
gpg -er 0x01234567 user1.tar && rm user1.tar
Thanks,
Adam
___
Gn
I'm a litle bit confused about two different messages, one from gnupg
1.4.1(Debian sid) an one from PGPfreeware 6.5.3(Win) for the same
e-mail.
gnupg> gpg: BAD signature from "."
pgp> *** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key
It dosn't look for me the same but does it mean the same?
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 03:00:54PM +0200, Hiamal wrote:
> I'm a litle bit confused about two different messages, one from gnupg
> 1.4.1(Debian sid) an one from PGPfreeware 6.5.3(Win) for the same
> e-mail.
>
> gnupg> gpg: BAD signature from "."
>
> pgp> *** Status: Good Signature from Inval
Hi,
Could be better:
tar cf - /home/user1/* | gpg -er 0x01234567 - >
/backup/directory/user1.tar.gpg
And in $? you should have the return code.
isn't it?
/Sergi.
En/na Adam Funk ha escrit:
Should I be confident about using gpg's return code 0 in a script (run
automatically by at or cron) to
Hiamal wrote the following on 7/6/05 9:00 AM:
> I'm a litle bit confused about two different messages, one from gnupg
> 1.4.1(Debian sid) an one from PGPfreeware 6.5.3(Win) for the same
> e-mail.
>
> gnupg> gpg: BAD signature from "."
>
> pgp> *** Status: Good Signature from Invalid Key
>
http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_europa&lng=1&option=0,europa
Patenting software in EU remains divisive - EP kills directive on harmonising
Using its muscle like never before, the European Parliament has thrown out
a controversial bill to harmonise patents on software. This was
