> Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von
>
> Lessee...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4.
> And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely
> to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out ther
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:47:43AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to
> > throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that
> > way.
>
> 1.4 was deprecated the instant 2.0 was released. After much pushback it
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 01:22:41AM +0200, Leo Gaspard via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 11:48 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> >> Lessee...
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
> >> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:19:18AM -1100, Mirimir wrote:
> On 05/21/2018 02:31 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>>
>> https://ssd.eff.org/en/blog/pgp-and-efail-frequently-asked-questions
>>
>> “What if I keep getting PGP emails?
>>
>> You can decrypt these emails via the command line. If you prefer not
>
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:15:58AM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>
> I only use v1.4, and i will never never never never use anything
> newer because that is very large and consists of an immense amount
> of components that i really do not need. I receive keys via hkps://
> and sign, verify, enc
On 05/22/2018 08:21 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If the announced end-of-life is 12 months, then people will complain for
9 months, and maybe start working on migrating during the last 3 months.
You're an optimist. For any EOL date, a vast number of users ...
The real issue is the vast gulf b
> If the announced end-of-life is 12 months, then people will complain for
> 9 months, and maybe start working on migrating during the last 3 months.
You're an optimist. For any EOL date, a vast number of users will
simply *not migrate* until they stop getting updates. The reason why is
they're
On 05/23/2018 01:40 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:>> The longer you leave
people with maintenance, the longer they will want
>> maintenance past the deadline.
>>
>
> [1] Then a service org should exist that charges fees.
This service org already exists, is named in the message you replied to,
and is ca
Ben McGinnes wrote:
|On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 02:19:37AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
|> On 21/05/2018 13:34, Ben McGinnes wrote:
|>
|>> I agree with most of the article and largely with the need to break
...
|Mine too, it's why I keep a copy of 1.4 installed at all. It's been a
I only use v
How about announcing an end-of-life date for 1.4 that
is in the future (say, by 3 to 6 months)?
Too fast. Think 12 months as a minimum. There is prod code
out there running for years and a timeline that allows proper
project schedule/costing/testing would be better.
If the announced end-of-l
On 05/22/2018 11:48 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> Lessee...
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4.
>> And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely
>> to still be a few vocal
On 05/22/2018 05:38 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Lessee...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4.
And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely
to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out there.
How about announcing an end-of-life da
Lessee...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4.
And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely
to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out there.
How about announcing an end-of-life date for 1.4 that
is in the future (say, by 3
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 02:19:37AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 13:34, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>
>> I agree with most of the article and largely with the need to break
>> compatibility to an ancient flawed design. Particularly since we
>> still have a means of accessing those ancient fo
On 05/22/2018 12:41 AM, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> On 22/05/18 07:30, Mirimir wrote:
>> Those are just screwed-up text-encoded images, right?
>
> Without seeing the full email, it's hard to tell. They don't appear to
> represent any well-known file type when run through a base64 decoder.
I tried t
Hi DIrk,
(Not subscribed to the list, so copied initial reply. Top-posting so
mail readers will more easily filter)
My backup was simply a full copy of my .gnupg directory, so that I
could easily just destroy the new one and restore if anything failed.
I'll try your suggestion, thanks!
- Justi
Break backwards compatibility already: it’s time. Ignore the haters. I trust
you.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Break backwards compatibility already: it’s time. Ignore the haters. I trust
you.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von Ralph
> Seichter
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2018 12:59
>
> On 22.05.18 03:42, Mark Rousell wrote:
>
> > Preventing users from encrypting new data using legacy encryption does
> > NOT ne
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 01:42:07AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 15:17, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> >> Break backwards compatibility already: it’s time. Ignore the haters. I
> >> trust you.
> > (I understand that that's a quote of a discussion-opener from the write-up.)
> >
> > I'd like to f
On 22/05/18 07:30, Mirimir wrote:
> Those are just screwed-up text-encoded images, right?
Without seeing the full email, it's hard to tell. They don't appear to
represent any well-known file type when run through a base64 decoder.
Most uses of such constructions are hacks to get emails to display
On 22.05.18 03:42, Mark Rousell wrote:
> Preventing users from encrypting new data using legacy encryption does
> NOT need to mean that other users have to be prevented from (quite
> legitimately) accessing archived data using legacy encryption with
> maintained software.
Who said "have to be pre
> Von: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] Im Auftrag von
>
> On 22/05/18 10:44, Fiedler Roman wrote:
> > Such a tool might then e.g. be used on a MitM message reencryption
> > gateway: the old machines still send messages with old
> > (deprecated/legacy options), they are transform
On 22/05/18 10:44, Fiedler Roman wrote:
> Such a tool might then e.g. be used on a MitM message reencryption
> gateway: the old machines still send messages with old
> (deprecated/legacy options), they are transformed by "gpg-archive":
> The full data (old message, old decrypt report, reencrypted
>
> Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to
> throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that
> way.
1.4 was deprecated the instant 2.0 was released. After much pushback it
was agreed to continue supporting 1.4. But after fourteen years it's
time t
Hello list,
I failed to decide, which message would be the best to reply to, so I took one
with a title, rational humanists could be proud of. Ignoring the title, many of
the messages had valid arguments for both sides. From my point of view the main
difference seems to be, what is believed to
Guys, especially in the wake of Efail, *please* stop sending HTML mail
to the list.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 05/22/2018 07:58 AM, Konstantin Boyandin via Gnupg-users wrote:
> primary-keyring ~/mounted/gnupg/pubring.gpg
> secret-keyring ~/mounted/gnupg/secring.gpg
> trustdb-name ~/mounted/gnupg/trustdb.gpg
> keyring ~/mounted/gnupg/pubring.gpg
> but I see no obvious directives to relocate pubring.kbx
Hello,
GnuPG: 2.2.7 (built from sources), OS: Ubuntu 16.04.4 (64-bit).
Problem: file pubring.kbx is by default created in GnuPG default config
directory. If some other files I can efficiently relocate in gpg.conf,
i.e. by using something like
primary-keyring ~/mounted/gnupg/pubring.gpg
secre
Hi Mark,
Am Dienstag, den 22.05.2018, 02:25 +0100 schrieb Mark Rousell:
> On 21/05/2018 08:53, Michael Kesper wrote:
> > I think it might be best to put that functionality into a separate
> > GnuPG version called gpg-legacy.
> > Make it clear in all man pages of this tool, the --version and --
> >
30 matches
Mail list logo
