> On 2 Nov 2020, at 19:55, Stefan Claas
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 7:12 PM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
>
>> I think a solution to this problem could be PBKDF2 hashed data
>> in the UID, but developing an OpenPGP certifying workflow could
>> be a bit tricky.
>>
>>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 7:12 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
> I think a solution to this problem could be PBKDF2 hashed data
> in the UID, but developing an OpenPGP certifying workflow could
> be a bit tricky.
>
> https://www.freecodeformat.com/pbkdf2.php
To be more precise, the name 'Stefan Claas'
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>
> On 31/10/2020 23:45, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > I am aware that there is a second 'Stefan Claas' living in Germany
> > but he would not have the same fingerprint as I would have. In case
> > of doubt people could always prove to third
On 2020-11-02 at 13:49 +0100, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:10, Phil Pennock said:
> > recipient. That's fine. I'd rather create pressure for people to fix
> > their systems to use modern cryptography than cater to their brokenness
> > with sensitive messages.
>
>
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 00:10, Phil Pennock said:
> I just sent a message to N recipients, and I think one of them probably
> has some preference algorithm in their key details, because this one
> mail was signed using SHA1, not my defaults.
Fixed:
commit 15746d60d492f5792e4a179ab0a08801b4049695
On 31/10/2020 23:45, Stefan Claas wrote:
> I am aware that there is a second 'Stefan Claas' living in Germany
> but he would not have the same fingerprint as I would have. In case
> of doubt people could always prove to third parties, if requested,
> that one is the actual key holder, with a
