On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:14 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:24 PM, helices wrote:
>
>> No matter how I try, I cannot encrypt a file using that public key, even
>> using --edit-key to assign trust:
>>
>> gpg: 845F5188: skipped: Unusable public key
>>
>> gpg: /tmp/test.txt: encrypt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Hi
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 at 11:38:36 PM, in
, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Did you see my two proposals at the end
> of my note about ways it could be improved if anyone
> has time and effo
On Apr 23, 2014, at 6:13 PM, t...@piratemail.se wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> This is a tiny bit philosophical. Perhaps a little off-topic. I think this is
> probably the best list to ask never-the-less.
>
> So I've been working on this pgp base web based mail service.
> https://github.com/timprepsci
On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:24 PM, helices wrote:
> No matter how I try, I cannot encrypt a file using that public key, even
> using --edit-key to assign trust:
>
> gpg: 845F5188: skipped: Unusable public key
>
> gpg: /tmp/test.txt: encryption failed: Unusable public key
>
>
> The owner of the pu
Greetings,
This is a tiny bit philosophical. Perhaps a little off-topic. I think this is
probably the best list to ask never-the-less.
So I've been working on this pgp base web based mail service.
https://github.com/timprepscius/mv
Here is the problem I hope eventually to be confronted with:
1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
tl;dr: "validity" is confusing, please consider using "ownership" or
"authenticity" for same concept.
Dear all,
it seems to me that the problem here is mainly one of semantics. The
technical concepts are clear to everyone involved, the question is how
GPG version trying to import: gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.14
Header from shared armored public key: Version: Encryption Desktop 10.3.0
(Build 8741)
GPG error on import:
# gpg --import /tmp/imps.asc
gpg: key 845F5188: no valid user IDs
gpg: this may be caused by a missing self-signature
gpg: Total number
On 04/23/2014 05:23 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 23/04/14 00:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> I can see it, actually.
>
> Yes, after dkg's last message yesterday I also realised I had overlooked that
> scenario. I think it can be generalised as "different roles", as even the
> verification effort /
On 23/04/14 10:08, p.h.delg...@xoxy.net wrote:
> New users that belong to the first kind above should be
> given an option of completely ditching the whole WoT
> superstructure in favour of the independent procurement
> of the key fingerprint
Yes, I think the experience for novice users would be i
On 04/22/2014 10:49 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
We do agree that crypto is by its nature difficult...
I agree, but I believe the statement should be more
specific, i.e.,: ...Web-of-Trust is by its nature difficult...
If I can propose a "we do agree" statement, it would be
the following:
*We do a
On 23/04/14 10:08, p.h.delg...@xoxy.net wrote:
> *We do agree that the WoT is the principal obstacle to a
> wider adoption of GnuPG.*
Only a few days ago, a list of literature on the subject was posted to this
mailing list.
I propose we keep the scope of this discussion narrower, and not touch th
On 23/04/14 00:49, Hauke Laging wrote:
> We do agree that crypto is by its nature difficult (I don't mean the math I
> mean the organizational envorinment) and that a serious part of this
> difficulty is more or less hidden by current tools (in order not to scare
> the users away), don't we?
We
On 23/04/14 00:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I can see it, actually.
Yes, after dkg's last message yesterday I also realised I had overlooked that
scenario. I think it can be generalised as "different roles", as even the
verification effort / signing policy can be different. Your boss might expect
13 matches
Mail list logo
