On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:25:14AM +0100, Ángel wrote:
> On 2021-01-15 at 20:34 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > My intention was only to promote WKD OpenPGP usage for github.io
> > pages in case people like the idea.
>
> This was a good idea, but github pages don't seem to
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:10 AM Ayoub Misherghi wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2021 3:18 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:57 AM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:34 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
> The intention is to sign and encrypt "data.file"
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:09 AM raf via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:20:17AM +0100, Stefan Claas
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:45 AM raf via Gnupg-users
> > wrote:
> >
> > > But there is no certificate that covers that sub-sub-domain.
> > > That's why browsers
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:07 PM Ángel wrote:
> You don't need a wildcard entry. You could simply request a certificate
> with the right name that will be needed.
Yes, for me as little nobody that is correct. But I guess we should not
forget the real host masters dealing with a couple (of
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:20:17AM +0100, Stefan Claas
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:45 AM raf via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
> > But there is no certificate that covers that sub-sub-domain.
> > That's why browsers complain if you go to
> > https://openpgpkey.sac001.github.io/.
>
> A quick
On 2021-01-16 at 02:20 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:45 AM raf wrote:
>
> > But there is no certificate that covers that sub-sub-domain.
> > That's why browsers complain if you go to
> > https://openpgpkey.sac001.github.io/.
>
> A quick question, if you don't mind. Why
On 2021-01-16 at 02:32 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Do I understand you correctly that if one uses now a subdomain
> like https://keys.300baud.de/.well-known/etc ... this would work
No. keys.300baud.de would work only for em...@keys.300baud.de
However, for em...@300baud.de, you
> Now I'm a bit confused :O
> I thought WKD can be used with your own webserver. So why do I have to
> make a CNAME recort pointing to "wkd.keys.openpgp.org"?
>
> Or did I understand anything wrong?
Sorry, that was confusing without context. Yes, WKD is bound to the domain of
the email
Just get rid of -s
On Jan 16, 2021 12:35, Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
wrote:
The intention is to sign and encrypt "data.file" producing a detached signature
file.
a@b:c$ gpg -s -e -b -r Mike data.file
gpg: conflicting commands
Why is there a conflict? I do not want to produce an
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:55 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:52 PM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:32 AM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Group!
> >
> > > BTW ... do any of you know a tutorial to set up WKD for
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:52 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:32 AM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Group!
>
> > BTW ... do any of you know a tutorial to set up WKD for 'Dummies'?
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
> me as a Windows DAU (Dümmster Anzunehmnder User)
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:32 AM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> Hello Group!
> BTW ... do any of you know a tutorial to set up WKD for 'Dummies'?
Hi Juergen,
me as a Windows DAU (Dümmster Anzunehmnder User) used the direct-method:
Create in your web server's root directory the
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:57 AM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:34 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The intention is to sign and encrypt "data.file" producing a detached
> > signature file.
> >
> >
> > a@b:c$ gpg -s -e -b -r Mike data.file
> >
> > gpg:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:34 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
>
> The intention is to sign and encrypt "data.file" producing a detached
> signature file.
>
>
> a@b:c$ gpg -s -e -b -r Mike data.file
>
> gpg: conflicting commands
>
>
> Why is there a conflict? I do not want to produce
The intention is to sign and encrypt "data.file" producing a
detached signature file.
a@b:c$ gpg -s -e -b -r Mike data.file
gpg: conflicting commands
Why is there a conflict? I do not want to produce an attached
signature.
Hello Group!
Am 16.01.21 um 03:26 schrieb Vincent Breitmoser via Gnupg-users:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Mon 2021-01-11 22:59:10 +0100, Ángel wrote:
The "make a CNAME of your openpgpkeys subdomain to
wkd.keys.openpgp.org" couldn't work with https certificate validation,
16 matches
Mail list logo
