On Tue 2017-02-14 15:08:25 -0500, Werner Koch wrote:
> I don't think that --throw-keyid is a useful thing for use of gpg
> in mails - it does not really help in this use case because that meta
> data is easier available by other means.
I absolutely agree with this assessment, and i also agree with
> ... while adding another option may fix every small problem at hand, it
> creates a huge one that is even harder to fix: We have way too many
options
> already.
Some years ago I had the wild urge to set up Prolog code that would
determine the necessary command-line flags to sustain certain opera
Hello Yutaka,
>
> The length of the Reset Code should be more than or equals to 8. If it
> is shorter, it fails. What is your case?
> --
>
It doesn't even get to the point where it prompts me for the Reset Code:
Here is what I do:
When try to set the reset code via "passwd => 4" it prompts
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:27, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
> I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior.
There is an old FIXME in the code which needs to be removed:
/* FIXME: Store this all in a list and process it later so that
we can prioritize what key to us
On 02/14/2017 07:51 PM, Marko Bauhardt wrote:
> The trust level of my two IDs was `unknown` in the one public key and
> `ultimate` in the other key.
Trust level is not a property of the public key, it is stored out of
band (in the local trustdb)
--
Kristian Fiskerst
Hi Peter,
> On 13 Feb 2017, at 12:16, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>
>
> An OpenPGP public key is composed of many parts which can be reordered
> without changing the meaning. Keyservers do reorder stuff, so you can't
> just compare two keys byte by byte and say anything useful about their
> equivalenc
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> On Tue 2017-02-14 05:28:07 -0500, Justus Winter wrote:
>> I don't. I strongly believe that adding command line switches should be
>> the absolute last resort.
>
> I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior.
I have none, and tbh I did not even
On Tue 2017-02-14 05:28:07 -0500, Justus Winter wrote:
> I don't. I strongly believe that adding command line switches should be
> the absolute last resort.
I'm open to other suggestions about how to achieve this behavior.
GnuPG's general stance appears to be that the only way to interact with
t
On 13/02/17 17:54, Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools wrote:
> As fallback gnupg could return the information that no cached passphrase was
> found,
> allowing the MUA or plugin to then re-try without the option that enables
> „silent“ checking.
Maybe GnuPG already does this, but instead of a two-step pro
Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes:
> [ Unknown signature status ]
> On Mon 2017-02-13 11:54:04 -0500, Lukas Pitschl | GPGTools wrote:
>>> Am 13.02.2017 um 17:34 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor :
>>>
>>> On Mon 2017-02-13 06:41:51 -0500, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
Step two: Encrypt using gpg --throw
10 matches
Mail list logo