Am 26 Feb 2008 um 9:55 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
>
> Am 26 Feb 2008 um 8:48 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> >
> >1. If there are several recipients, test the given passphrase
> >automatically for all secret keys in your keyring, so that you don't
> >have to give for example 9 times
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 10:00 +0100, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> You don't believe me to enter 9 times a complete passphrase, do you?
> You are right, that it is possible to live with it, but why not
> implement something more comfortable if it doesn't lower the security
> level?
>
>
> While pgpdum
Dirk Traulsen dirk.traulsen at lypso.de
wrote on Wed Feb 27 10:00:25 CET 2008
>You don't believe me to enter 9 times a complete passphrase, do
you?
i agree with you completely that it would be a major annoyance to
have to enter a complete passphrase, even 3 times,
and certainly would be very a
vedaal at hush.com vedaal at hush.com
wrote o Wed Feb 27 15:51:05 CET 2008
>What I meant, was something like this mockup:
==
>C:\>gpg --recipient-keys ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg
>gpg: file ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg was encrypted to the following keys:
actually, gnupg already does this when decr
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 9:51 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> Dirk Traulsen dirk.traulsen at lypso.de
> wrote on Wed Feb 27 10:00:25 CET 2008
>
> >You don't believe me to enter 9 times a complete passphrase, do
> you?
>
> i agree with you completely that it would be a major annoyance to
> have t
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:28PM +0100, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
> > >What I meant, was something like this mockup:
> > ==
> > >C:\>gpg --recipient-keys ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg
> > >gpg: file ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg was encrypted to the following keys:
> >
> >
> > i agree, and would welcome th
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> pressing the 'enter' key 9 times quickly, is something i can live
> with without bothering the developers
Well, I sometimes receive mails encrypted to 20 or so keys and some of
them use the wild card keyid (-R) feature. Now, this is not a pro
On 26/02/2008 08:10, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> [gpg4win]
> ; Installer settings. Do not define or leave empty for defaults.
> inst_gnupg2 = false
> inst_gpgol = true
> inst_gpgex = true
> inst_gpa = true
> inst_winpt = true
> inst_gpgee = true
> inst_claws_mail = false
> inst_novic
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com
wrote on Wed Feb 27 19:23:34 CET 2008 :
>By the way:
> gpg --no-default-keyring --secret-keyring /dev/null the-file.gpg
.....
what is the correct command on 'windows' ?
TIA,
vedaal
any ads or links
Initially, I replied straight back to Werner (by mistake). He already
responded with the answer...
"inst_gnupg2" and "inst_gpgex" are for use in the forthcoming release of
gpg4win.
Regards,
Craig.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com
> wrote on Wed Feb 27 19:23:34 CET 2008 :
>
>>By the way:
>> gpg --no-default-keyring --secret-keyring /dev/null the-file.gpg
>
> what is the correct command on Windows ?
gpg --no-default-keyring --secret-keyring nul the-file.gpg
o
Hi. I have a question regarding some automation options in Gnupg.
Im using Gnupg 2.0.4 running on OpenSuse 10.3 32bit.
Each 3rd day i get 5-10 new .gpg files that i need to automatically decrypt
using a known passphrase using the following command line:
gpg --decrypt-files --no-mdc-warning -q --a
Hi,
I use GnuPG together with mutt on Debian Etch. I prefer to use
ISO-8859-1 and have these lines in my .muttrc to accomplish that:
set charset="iso-8859-1"
set config_charset="iso-8859-1"
set send_charset="iso-8859-1"
When sending a mail without using GnuPG (by selecting "clear" in mutt'
I heard GNU 1.4.7 support OPENVMS and some other popular Operation System.
what is the difference in the newest version in this part?
thx a lot
Daniel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
MSN圣诞礼物火热登场，免费发放中，快来领取吧！
http://im.live.cn/emoticon
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:17:01 -0500 John Clizbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>By the way:
>>> gpg --no-default-keyring --secret-keyring /dev/null the-
>file.gpg
>>
>> what is the correct command on Windows ?
>
>gpg --no-default-keyring --secret-keyring nul the-file.gpg
i can't get it to work :-
* Martin Toft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-27 20:06:57 +0100]:
> I use GnuPG together with mutt on Debian Etch. I prefer to use
> ISO-8859-1
Short question: Why?
ISO-8859-1 is a hack and even so common alphabets like cyrillic break it.
So, if you want to stay sane, switch to UTF-8.
My 0,02 EUR
Hi all,
after creating a new key and getting back into 'serious' gpg usage,
I attended a key signing party where the overwhelming portion of
people had only one form of ID with them.
It seems that most people assign the highest trust level to others
who have presented only one form of ID. Persona
Richard Hartmann wrote:
It seems that most people assign the highest trust level to others
who have presented only one form of ID. Personally, I tend towards
only granting that to people who showed me two seperate pieces
of ID.
It may be helpful for you to think about things in terms of not jus
Another couple of thoughts--
I know I am free to do whatever I want, but I am looking for
feedback and, perhaps, consensus from the community.
If I recall correctly, OpenPGP explicitly has six different
certification levels (in the range 0-5), but it does not specify any
semantic meaning to
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:38:11AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after creating a new key and getting back into 'serious' gpg usage,
> I attended a key signing party where the overwhelming portion of
> people had only one form of ID with them.
>
> It seems that most people assign t
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:45:50PM -0600, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Another couple of thoughts--
>
>> I know I am free to do whatever I want, but I am looking for
>> feedback and, perhaps, consensus from the community.
>
> If I recall correctly, OpenPGP explicitly has six different certification
>
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Because of these three factors--no semantic meaning
> associated with certification levels, some OpenPGP
> implementations not supporting the distinctions, and many
> implementations making it easy to forget that such
> distinctions exist--my default policy is to treat
Hi!
Am Donnerstag, den 28.02.2008, 01:38 +0100 schrieb Richard Hartmann:
> after creating a new key and getting back into 'serious' gpg usage,
> I attended a key signing party where the overwhelming portion of
> people had only one form of ID with them.
What do you define as "form of ID"?
Being
23 matches
Mail list logo
