On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:33:39 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger said:
> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
> Will there be a different version that supports this new feature? I
We don't support DNS queries under Windows right now. Windows does
not provide the usual
On 4/7/06, John M Church <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Qed/Ryan et al,
> Do either of you guys do automated decryption? This doesn't seem to be
> addressed in the FAQ - just automated signing. I'm open to suggestions.
I do use GnuPG for automated decryption for one batch process. To do
so, I use
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 08:22:04PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> All that said, though, I'm not convinced that the armored stream you
> got from the keyserver is invalid. I think there may be a problem in
> GPG's armor parser (hard to imagine after this many years, but..) It
> seems that the bad ke
Werner Koch wrote
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:33:39 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger said:
>
>> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
>> Will there be a different version that supports this new feature? I
>
> We don't support DNS queries under Windows right now. Wind
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
>
>
> Werner Koch wrote
>
> > On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:33:39 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger said:
> >
> >> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
> >> Will there be a different version that supports this new
David Shaw wrote
>> >> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
>> >> Will there be a different version that supports this new feature? I
>> >
>> > We don't support DNS queries under Windows right now. Windows does
>> > not provide the usual resolver library so we wo
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 05:09:05PM +0100, Bob Henson wrote:
> David Shaw wrote
>
> >> >> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
> >> >> Will there be a different version that supports this new feature? I
> >> >
> >> > We don't support DNS queries under Windows right
David Shaw wrote
>> >> >> That's very bad, as I downloaded the official binaries from gnupg.org.
>> >> >> Will there be a different version that supports this new feature? I
>> >> >
>> >> > We don't support DNS queries under Windows right now. Windows does
>> >> > not provide the usual resolver
Hi,
Today I wanted to do an update of the public keys in my list via Enigmail
(Refresh all public keys). I got this message:
> gpg: MPI larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> gpg: keydb_get_keygblock failed: invalid keyring
I thought th
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 09:19:17PM +0200, Ben Branders wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Today I wanted to do an update of the public keys in my list via Enigmail
> (Refresh all public keys). I got this message:
>
> > gpg: MPI larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error:
Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
texts. Werner Koch wrote in
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2004-October/023500.html
that:
That messag
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ben Branders wrote
> Enigmail Keymanagement doesn't show any keys, not even the private ones.
>
> Please inform me what I should do to fix this.
> Thank you!
While this would probably be a better Question on the Enigmail List; try
File > Reload Key
David Shaw wrote:
> I don't think anyone here can help you without knowing what version of
> GnuPG you're talking about.
Oops, sorry.
I'm using GnuPG 1.4.3 on Slackware Linux (current tree).
Regards,
--
Ben Branders
web http://branders.name http://www.livre.nl
jabber
Hi
--On Freitag, 7. April 2006 13:56 +0200 Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The gpg4win project aims at updating the gpg4win Windows installation
> package with GnuPG encryption tool, associated applications and
> documentation on a regular basis. Especially the documentation
> (handbook
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Hühn wrote:
> --On Freitag, 7. April 2006 13:56 +0200 Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> The gpg4win project aims at updating the gpg4win Windows
>> installation package with GnuPG encryption tool, associated
>> applications and docu
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 03:27:17PM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
>
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
>
> that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
> texts. Werner Koch wrote in
> http://lists.gn
> "ds" == David Shaw
> "Re: auto-key-locate pka (gpg version 1.4.3)"
> Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:11:48 -0400
ds> This means that the build of GnuPG you has no DNS support (pka
ds> and cert require DNS support, and ldap and keyserver don't).
Wouldn't it be nice if 'gpg --version' pri
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:16:14PM -0400, John A. Martin wrote:
> > "ds" == David Shaw
> > "Re: auto-key-locate pka (gpg version 1.4.3)"
> > Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:11:48 -0400
>
> ds> This means that the build of GnuPG you has no DNS support (pka
> ds> and cert require DNS support
David Shaw wrote:
> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES256
> is just twice as large.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'd like t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
>> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
>> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: A
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:44:18PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> > cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> > Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES25
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 07:57:00PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> >> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> >> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> >> Yes, but that's that not to say tha
On 9-Apr-06, at 7:28 PM, David Shaw wrote:
MDC can be forced on via --force-mdc. As Werner said, the preference
Excellent. So, the follow-up question is, should one use this option
for files symmetrically encrypted for long-term storage (like if
burned to a CD)?
system will automaticall
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:16:14PM -0400, John A. Martin wrote:
>>> "ds" == David Shaw
>>> "Re: auto-key-locate pka (gpg version 1.4.3)"
>>> Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:11:48 -0400
>> ds> This means that the build of GnuPG you has no DNS support (pka
>> ds> and cert require DNS
24 matches
Mail list logo
