shirish wrote:
Please trim your emails to only quote the relevant bits
>
> gpg -a-se-u (0 or Oxkeyid) as well as gpg-a-se-u which told me the
> former is the one to be used.
>
> Then finally hit a brainwave and did
>
> gpg -a -se -u OxD8FC66D2 -r OxD8FC66D2 myloveletter.txt
>
> With space be
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 00:08 -0500, John B wrote:
> On Fri 27 April 07 13:24, Carl wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:29 -0500, John B wrote:
> > > Hi again,
> > >
> > > Out of the blue, it seems kgpg doesn't see my .gnupg directory. I
> > > opened it up the other day just to check something, a
On 5/16/07, Peter Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then only that
> passphrase needs to be securely stored and the secret key can be stored
> with standard backup procedures.
I believe the originally posted question centered around long-term key
storage, for which magnetic and optical media are i
y
> found in the secret keyring.
>
> >> Then see if it works:
> >> gpg --decrypt yourloveletter.txt.asc
>
> gpg will ask for your key's passphrase in order to decrypt the message.
>
>
>
> --
> John P. Clizbe Inet: John (a) Mozil
On May 16, 2007, at 5:08 AM, Jim Berland wrote:
P.S.: I never came into contact with certificates like the ones from
Thawte or CACert.org before and I don't know anybody who uses them.
Considering the problems I see with GPG for this task, though, I
wonder if certificates would do the job bette
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:20:18PM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 03:28:24PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> > One trick that can be done when paper escrowing OpenPGP keys is to
> > only print the part you care about. OpenPGP secret keys are heavily
> > padded with non-secret data.
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 03:28:24PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> One trick that can be done when paper escrowing OpenPGP keys is to
> only print the part you care about. OpenPGP secret keys are heavily
> padded with non-secret data. In fact, the secret key contains a
> complete copy of the public ke
Fingerprint:
C54A C9DD 84AD C6FC D343 67C4 5195 D63A CD55 18C7
On Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 12:44PM, "David Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:07:35AM -0500, Ryan Malayter wrote:
>
>> I would suggest using plain old base64 ASCII and a large version of a
>> font like
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:07:35AM -0500, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> I would suggest using plain old base64 ASCII and a large version of a
> font like OCR-A or OCR-B. You can include par2 information, also
> base64 encoded, but finding software to use that data for recovery may
> be difficult many yea
shirish wrote:
>> Then sign and encrypt to an ascii file using your own key ID when it
>> asks for recipient:
>> gpg -a -se yourloveletter.txt
>
> Casey could you give me more precise instructions please. How do I
> sign & encrypt to an ascii file using my key ID (public key ID perhaps? )
>
>
Hi all,
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:18:45 -0700
> From: Casey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Confusion] distinction between the 2 versions 1.4.6 &
> 2.0.3 & how to make the key compliant with 2.0.3
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want reasonably accurate data from OCR of scans of fonts not
specifically designed for OCR then you need to proofread the output
and correct as necessary. Outside of tightly controlled
circumstances, OCR is not going to be fully reliable without this
step.
I keep a paper copy of my revocat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In instances where GPG is used on a portable drive and used on
different machines, it is much better to have gpg.conf read from the
same directory as GPG rather than read from %appdata%\gnupg or
~/.gnupg. Just to have it check the same directory,
Hello everybody,
I am going to try to set up GPG for our small company (about 15
people) and would like to ask you guys for some help. Following I will
write down my thoughts on this, that I had so far. Comments would be
highly appreciated since I do not want to start this before I don't
feel conf
Ryan Malayter wrote:
> On 5/15/07, Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Windows there is
>> just one way to share memory. Memory locking must be understood in that
>> context. It is meant for synchronization purposes, not for security.
>
> LocalLock() and GlobalLock() do indeed seem
Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely talked about snooping in the memory space of the process.
> Yes, if your computer is compromised, all activity at that moment is also
> compromised. The thing with swapspace though, is that the plaintext remains
> on disk long after you've edited the file!
16 matches
Mail list logo
