For those who are interested, I've moved this thread to that location:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/msg30794.html
Peter
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:48 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> The RFC is really a file format document more so than a "how to use trust"
> document. Every now and then it is suggested that a trust document or
> something like an OpenPGP best practices document should be written, but
> nobody has taken up
2009/1/27 David Shaw :
> I think at this point you should take the discussion to the ietf-openpgp
> list. This is really the GnuPG users lists, and the questions are in-depth
> design questions for the protocol itself.
Or at least keep it all in the same thread so it's easier for me to delete...
David Shaw wrote:
> I think at this point you should take the discussion to the ietf-
> openpgp list. This is really the GnuPG users lists, and the questions
> are in-depth design questions for the protocol itself.
Seconded.
IETF OpenPGP Working Group
http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/
--
J
I think at this point you should take the discussion to the ietf-
openpgp list. This is really the GnuPG users lists, and the questions
are in-depth design questions for the protocol itself.
David
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hello.
This time it's all about signature
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:02 AM, ved...@hush.com wrote:
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:31:39 -0500
From: David Shaw
Subject: Re: Series of minor questions about OpenPGP 1
Old programs will basically blow up if they see something they
don't
understand. There is a special packet, the Marker Packet (t
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:02, ved...@hush.com said:
> how does gnupg manage to maintain 16, 32, 64 bit
There is and will never be a 16 bit version of GnuPG.
Under Windows we currently only support 32 bit.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz
Hello.
This time it's all about signature subpackets:
Sorry that this got longer, but I think these points are all somehow
connected. So feel free to split up as you like :-)
I know that these questions are more about OpenPGP itself than gnupg,
but perhaps you, David, can have a look at them here,
On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi again.
Ok this is a first bunch of questions on signatures (again both
specific for gnupg but perhaps also common for OpenPGP).
Would be glad if someone could help me with answering these (David?!
xD).
1) For the 0x11 signature the RFC say
Werewolf wrote:
> Try either putting the line
> enable-dsa2
> in your gpg.conf file or on the commandline add the command
> gpg --enable-dsa2 --gen-key
Thanks for help and info, to You and anybody who explained connected
issues. :)
--
Pozdrawiam,
Michał Gołębiowski
_
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:31:39 -0500
>From: David Shaw
>Subject: Re: Series of minor questions about OpenPGP 1
>Old programs will basically blow up if they see something they
>don't
>understand. There is a special packet, the Marker Packet (tag 10)
>which basically exists to make PGP 2.x prin
Hi again.
Ok this is a first bunch of questions on signatures (again both
specific for gnupg but perhaps also common for OpenPGP).
Would be glad if someone could help me with answering these (David?! xD).
1) For the 0x11 signature the RFC says "...has not done any
verification of the claim that .
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> No, but you could patch it if you liked. Take a look at the
> write_header() and write_new_header() functions in build-packet.c
Although you've convinced me that using old packet types where
possible is preferable, I still tried to get this wor
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:57 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> They should at least fail - a new style RFC-4880 (or 2440) packet (of any
> type) is unreadable by an old RFC-1991 program. It simply won't be
> meaningful. At to *how* it will fail, that depends on the program.
>
> The point of the Marker Pac
14 matches
Mail list logo
