On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 21:05, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said:
> I just noticed that it is possible to create UIDs without an email address
> without giving the option --allow-freeform-uid. The man page says:
That is perfectly okay. Not every user has a mail address.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
Am Mo 09.07.2012, 09:57:42 schrieb Werner Koch:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 21:05, mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de said:
> > I just noticed that it is possible to create UIDs without an email
> > address
> > without giving the option --allow-freeform-uid. The man page says:
> That is perfectly okay. Not e
Hello list,
I read that Libgcrypt 1.5.0 has support for OAEP and PSS methods as
described by RFC-3447.
Does GnuPG 2.0.19 make use of this libgcrypt?
And is there any flag, environment variable or command-line option that
could be passed to gpg2, to make it use RSA-OAEP padding for encryption?
Th
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:34, ml-...@m-privacy.de said:
> And is there any flag, environment variable or command-line option that
> could be passed to gpg2, to make it use RSA-OAEP padding for encryption?
OpenPGP does not define OAEP thus we can't use it.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken
Here's the result of ShowPRef for my key:
Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES
Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224
Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed
SHA1 is showing up second. So when I sign a message, why isn't SHA256 used? The
headers on my emails appear to sho
Am Mo 09.07.2012, 17:45:37 schrieb Sam Smith:
> Here's the result of ShowPRef for my key:
> Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES
> Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224
> Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed
>
> SHA1 is showing up second. So when I sign a message, why i
Hello Sam !
Sam Smith wrote:
> Here's the result of ShowPRef for my key:
> Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES
> Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224
> Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed
> SHA1 is showing up second. So when I sign a message, why isn't SHA256 used
Hello,
I was just pointed at the problem that for the last months all of my
signatures are supposed to be bad. I use KMail which shows both the emails I
have sent and those I receive via this list as correctly signed. I just used
Thunderbird (13.0) to check and TB claims even (most but not all)
On 07/09/2012 06:18 PM, Laurent Jumet wrote:
> I think that by default, --gnupg is in use; --gnupg means --openpgp
> This means strict OpenPGP behaviour: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160
Nope.
> Try using "--digest-algo SHA256" in the command line or GPG.CONF;
> may be you'll need to suppress "--personal-di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 7/9/2012 7:12 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> DON'T USE --cipher-algo OR --digest-algo UNLESS YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE
> DOING AND WHY. IT'S
EASY TO CREATE MESSAGES YOUR RECIPIENT CANNOT READ.
which open-pgp implementation can't read/verify
On 7/9/2012 10:04 PM, vedaal wrote:
> which open-pgp implementation can't read/verify SHA-256
PGP 8.0 or before. SHA-256 was introduced in 8.1, if I recall
correctly. There are still a *lot* of people using 6.5.8.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-us
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello Robert !
"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>> I think that by default, --gnupg is in use; --gnupg means --openpgp
>> This means strict OpenPGP behaviour: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160
> Nope.
>> Try using "--digest-algo SHA256" in the command line or G
As a curiosity, could you have both clients save the message in raw
format somewhere on the disks, and compare if they're the same with a
checksum?
Maybe there's some misbehavior with the line endings in terms of *nix
vs Winblow$ (so checking with cat -v would also be a good idea)? I know
that at
13 matches
Mail list logo
