On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:02 AM Stefan Claas
wrote:
> The nice things about OpenPGP amored messages is also that
> procmail and friends can be used at providers to filter -BEGIN blah
P.S. When Stale Schumacher ran the International PGP Homepage in the 90's
people could download PGP for
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:25 AM Ángel wrote:
> Last night, I prepared the domain wkdtest.pgp.16bits.net It is a valid
> wkd server. I have just created and uploaded there a new pgp key, and
> you have to obtain it:
>
>
> «We have intercepted the following communication sent to an spy using
> an
On 2021-01-20 at 20:29 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after some more thought I came up with a possible wording to clarify
> the
> fallback behavior. Assuming that an opportunistic approach is
> preferred, so the direct method should be used not only based on the
> existence of
On 2021-01-20 at 08:08 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:41 AM Ángel wrote:
>
> > A list of all (well, most) openpgpkey subdomains can be easily
> > created.
>
> Yes and I believe that what Neal and you (in your new posting) have
> explained makes it only
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:21 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
> >
> > > Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> > > implementations.
> >
> > Since 'broken'
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 4:15 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
>
> > Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> > implementations.
>
> Since 'broken' implementations are available and can handle both cases,
> and this is now generally
Hi all,
after some more thought I came up with a possible wording to clarify the
fallback behavior. Assuming that an opportunistic approach is
preferred, so the direct method should be used not only based on the
existence of openpgpkey as a SRV or other record. Here goes:
---SNIP--- (page 3,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:11 PM wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, mettodo via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > 14 of 20 tests failed when doing "make check" for gnupg 2.2.27. What
> > should I do?
>
> Most certainly you should not tell anyone which OS or compiler
> or options you used.
> Neither should
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, mettodo via Gnupg-users wrote:
> 14 of 20 tests failed when doing "make check" for gnupg 2.2.27. What
> should I do?
Most certainly you should not tell anyone which OS or compiler
or options you used.
Neither should you include the actual test failures.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Werner Koch wrote:
> Broken implementations are not a reason to break correct
> implementations.
Since 'broken' implementations are available and can handle both cases,
and this is now generally known, people do *not* need to follow a *draft*
and can *happily*
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:46, Erich Eckner said:
> is queried. This resolves to some old address (my DNS configuration
> error), which serves the wrong content. Is it right, that this SRV record
> should be queried? Should I update it or remove it?
Yes, the SRV record is used if there is no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:24, Erich Eckner said:
error in the subject when doing `gpg - --locate-external-keys
Many -v don't really help here because the actual task is done by the
dirmngr process.
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 16:31, Stefan Claas said:
> there exists also a direct-method in you current draft, which people like
> to use, when low on budged or which like to avoid, for whatever privacy
If you do some research on the infrastructure of large providers (which
includes talking to them)
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:24, Erich Eckner said:
> error in the subject when doing `gpg - --locate-external-keys
Many -v don't really help here because the actual task is done by the
dirmngr process. Thus to debug this put
log-file /somewhere/dirmngr.log
verbose
debug ipc,network,dns
Hi!
thanks for the report. I opened a ticket for this:
https://dev.gnupg.org/T5257
Please check over there for status updates.
(I accidently mentioned gnupg-users in the annoucement mail and not
gcryypt-devel which would been the right one).
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind
Hey,
14 of 20 tests failed when doing "make check" for gnupg 2.2.27. What
should I do?
thanks!
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
hello
(my specs are enclosed below)
just tried to cross-build 32 bit libgcrypt-1.9.0 on a 64 bit machine
and getting:
8<
libtool: compile: gcc -m32 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I../src -I../src
-I../mpi -I../mpi -I/usr/include -I/usr/Xorg/include -fvisibility=hidden
17 matches
Mail list logo
