Hi Newton
I've successfully built and installed PTH 2.0.7
and the pth-config says: pth_version=2.0.7 (08-Jun-2006)
Now I've tried to compile gnupg-2.0.15 but configure fails with error:
.
configure: checking for programs
.
checking for pth-config... /QOpenSys/usr/local/bin/pth-config
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:15, beppeco...@yahoo.it said:
checking for PTH - version = 1.3.7... yes
checking whether PTH installation is sane... no
Please look into config.log and locate the above is sane check. It
shows the actual test program run etc.
I think that the problem is still with FD_SETSIZE
Paste this part of config.log
configure:7909: checking for pth-config
configure:7927: found /QOpenSys/usr/local/bin/pth-config
configure:7940: result: /QOpenSys/usr/local/bin/pth-config
configure:7954: checking for PTH - version = 1.3.7
I've got more than one encryption subkey attached to my primary certification
key. If someone encrypts a message using my primary key id as recipient gnupg
always chooses the most recently created encryption subkey. Both subkeys are
valid, neither one of them is revoked.
I'm not quiet sure but
* Joke de Buhr j...@seiken.de wrote:
I'm not quiet sure but shouldn't gnupg encrypt to both (all
not-revoked) encryption keys in this case? This way the user could
decrypt the encrypted message (email) regardless what encryption
keys secrets are available at the current location.
Nope. More
* Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Nope. More to the point, think about people having both private UID
and business UID on the same key - the way you describe it could mix
things up badly.
How so? There's no connection between UIDs and keys
Exactly, and you are not getting my
On 05/11/2010 07:22 PM, markus reichelt wrote:
* Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Nope. More to the point, think about people having both private UID
and business UID on the same key - the way you describe it could mix
things up badly.
How so? There's no connection between UIDs and
On 05/11/2010 05:02 PM, markus reichelt wrote:
Nope. More to the point, think about people having both private UID
and business UID on the same key - the way you describe it could mix
things up badly.
But UIDs aren't bound to subkeys (they're bound to the primary key, just
as the subkeys are
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 23:02:18 markus reichelt wrote:
* Joke de Buhr j...@seiken.de wrote:
I'm not quiet sure but shouldn't gnupg encrypt to both (all
not-revoked) encryption keys in this case? This way the user could
decrypt the encrypted message (email) regardless what encryption
keys
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 00:44:37 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I'm not suggesting that joke's proposal of
encrypt-to-all-encryption-capable-subkeys is the right choice, but it's
not clear that there's any particular reason to prefer one key over
another (perhaps if you were introducing a new
On 05/11/2010 07:42 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
The encrypt-to-all-encryption-capable-subkeys ensures that the owner of the
primary key will always be able to decrypt the message no matter what (not-
revoke) encryption key secrets he can access at the moment.
yup, i think this is a good argument
On May 11, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
Telling people which key to use doesn't solve the problem. Think about me
switching places between two computers. Each computer got only one of the two
encryption secret keys. So if one computer gets compromised I only loose that
specific
On 5/11/2010 8:08 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:42 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
The encrypt-to-all-encryption-capable-subkeys ensures that the owner of the
primary key will always be able to decrypt the message no matter what (not-
revoke) encryption key secrets he can access at
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 02:08:27 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
yup, i think this is a good argument for your proposed behavior. what i
haven't seen yet (haven't thought through yet) is what the
counter-arguments might be.
One possible argument against it could be the increased size of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
