, on the GnuPG website, and
if you still have questions, come back and ask...
--
David Smith| Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380Home: +44 (0)1454 616963
STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724
1000 Aztec West| TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2
Almondsbury
, which may be of help as well.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 08:08:35PM +1000, Felipe Alvarez wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 12:10 AM, David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
What do the letters to the right of the words usage mean? (S,C,A,E) I
can only guess |S|ign, |E|ncrypt,
(S)ign: sign some data (like a file)
(C
a - (a dash and a space) to the beginning of each
dash.
Just verify the message to check the signature, and what comes out of
the verification step has all the escaping removed so you can use the
key you included.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg
to the right of the words usage mean?
(S,C,A,E) I can only guess |S|ign, |E|ncrypt,
(S)ign: sign some data (like a file)
(C)ertify: sign a key (this is called certification)
(A)uthenticate: authenticate yourself to a computer (for example,
logging in)
(E)ncrypt: encrypt data
David
| uniq`
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:14:24PM -0500, gerry_lowry (alliston ontario canada)
wrote:
David Shaw wrote, in part:
You can have one subkey for encryption, one subkey for signing, and
leave your primary key for certification.
This lets you do tricks like keeping your primary
-locate ldap://my-company-keyserver hkp://keys.gnupg.net
ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
And they will be tried in order until one of them succeeds. While
most keyservers synch, a local company keyserver likely would not, and
things like PGP's global directory can't synch by their nature.
David
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:38:23AM -0500, ved...@hush.com wrote:
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:21:46 -0500
From: David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com
Subject: Re: surrendering one's passphrase to authorities
Folks on this list have said for years that rubber-hose key
extraction
is orders
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:46:38PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
I suspect things would go rather like this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptogra...@metzdowd.com/msg10391.html
Perry is an optimist. It's considerably worse than he makes it out to be.
Judges
On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
Indeed, and also (in the US at least), the attorneys for each side
can (to a limited degree that varies from situation to situation)
remove people from the potential juror list after interviewing them
(a Voir Dire challenge
, unless there is a --
no-default-keyring somewhere or $GNUPGHOME/secring.gpg does not exist.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Faramir wrote:
David Shaw escribió:
secret-keyring z:\gpghome\secring.gpg
(that's the location of the secring that has the unedited keys)
But my question is: what does that line do? When it is in
gpg.conf, do
I have the 2 secrings at the same time
, of course, am not a lawyer. Instead, here is a discussion
of this case from someone who is:
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1197670606.shtml
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
gpgsplit to break the keys into its parts and combine them later. Then,
you need to create a new key binding signature. It is probably easier
to create new subkeys and revoke the old subkeys on the other key.
IIRC, David posted a description to this ML some time ago; I don't have
a reference
On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Atom Smasher wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, David Shaw wrote:
This article caught my eye. One of the things that I gleaned from
the article is that it's obvious that law enforcement (at this
level) does not have the ability to brute-force crack PGP
encrypted data
time to
think things through, and how they may act when caught transporting
child porn over a border.
Even so, there are many things he could have done to try and hide his
illegal material *before* approaching the border.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing
, but not a key, I would like gpg to
automatically pull the key from my configured key server.
This is not currently possible. It seems like it should be (the
principle of least surprise dictates that it should work with anything
that can be passed to '-r').
Let me think about this a bit.
David
.
Indeed. There is an interesting debate over whether digital photos
are too easy to erase. Every now and then, the unimportant photo
turns out to be needed. For example: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9807/editorial.htm
David
___
Gnupg-users
of Congress. The archivists re-photographed these
paper prints back onto film, and managed to reconstruct the original
movies. See, for example, http://rs6.loc.gov/papr/nychome.html
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http
.
Drifting a bit from crypto here, I'm afraid. We should wind this
subthread up.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
is more intended as a reminder for those who already
have some understanding of the concepts (you're not going to learn to
code in C from the man pages), try typing a '?' here.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org
all that much. Certainly they
are at least secure against casual snooping, which is all I need them
for.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
. Strictly speaking, everything else is optional. Of
course, most programs support a good chunk of the optional algorithms.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
, one key for personal and open-source
work), but again this is just what I like.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
on a
passphrase to keep your secret key safe. Either way, you have a
passphrase to protect.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
pair, proving their identity to each and every person signing it?
Yes. It is bad practice to sign a key just because they signed a
previous key owned by the same person. You should check each time.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users
for everything else. A
common reason for something to show up in this group is a timestamp
conflict (for example, the signature is older than the key that issued
it). When you do a --check-sig, some sigs are tagged with sig%.
Look for those and you can usually read the reason for the error.
David
the revocation for this to work. Since you've sent it to
the keyserver, there isn't much you can do, sorry.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Interesting.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/02/gmail-tests-pgp-signature-verification.html
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 01:25:33PM -0700, Joseph Oreste Bruni wrote:
On Friday, February 13, 2009, at 12:44PM, David Shaw
ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
Interesting.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/02/gmail-tests-pgp-signature-verification.html
David
I like the idea
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 05:51:13PM -0300, Faramir wrote:
Joseph Oreste Bruni escribi??:
On Friday, February 13, 2009, at 12:44PM, David Shaw
ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
Interesting.
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/02/gmail-tests-pgp-signature-verification.html
...
I like
On Feb 11, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
This thread reminded me of the attached...
http://www.xkcd.com/538/
Even more amusing (and accurate) is the ALT text you can see when you
mouse over the picture.
David
___
Gnupg-users
speaks), plain old HTTP, DNS CERT, etc.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
, let's say it's even encrypted. When you wake the machine, is
the encrypted disk still mounted? If so, then why would I care if
it's encrypted or not?
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:37:43PM +0100, Ingo Kl?cker wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009, David Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:59:48PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
A good workaround is to use disk encryption (dm-crypt or similar
things).
Encrypted disks don't
you are trying to make a connection to and just fetch the keys along
that path. I've often thought that a clever keyserver could do that
(i.e. download the keys that form the shortest trust path between two
keys). Wotsap and http://pgp.cs.uu.nl are 80% of the way there
already.
David
Hello,
I've seen similar issues in some other posts, but still am unclear as to
how to resolve my issue.
I am trying to run a script to decrypt a file automatically from our job
scheduler (UC4).
I am able to run the script from the command prompt or by executing the
.bat file from the
, but in general, use whatever
CPU you like. GPG doesn't care.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
will
automatically create a public key from the secret key.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:41:12PM -0500, ved...@hush.com wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:30:07 -0500 David Shaw
ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
You don't need paperkey to do this. Just use GPG. If you import
a
secret key and you don't have the matching public key, GPG
sushi companion was pulling your leg.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
with that
accordingly.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Feb 10, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a GUID as it is only
unique relative to the vendor and device type
Must be my luck, then -- the ones I've looked at have all had per-
device
serial #s.
I suspect the better
On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Faramir wrote:
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
David Shaw wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a GUID as it is only
unique relative to the vendor and device type
Must be my luck, then -- the ones I've looked at have all had per-
device
serial #s
On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:07 AM, Ian Hill wrote:
David
I seem to be having some problems using the papertest key provided
with
the application (attached) and the associated key to create a
paperkey I
have extracted the following octets for each key and subkey.
Key 1
FE 03 03 02 56 AC A0 3D
-posting.
Next, you switch the type of each packet from public to secret (i.e.
change tag 6 to 5, or 14 to 7 for subkeys). Then cat them all back
together again.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman
.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
should protect the paper the same way you protect your electronic
secret key.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
the IDEA cipher), but there is no way to convert it
into another sort of key.
I'd recommend revoking any key that was generated with PGP 5.0. There
were problems with the random number generator in that version: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-09.html
David
on to the end. That's how
paperkey makes the keys so small - it can safely leave off all the
public key information.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
it
somewhere very, very safe. Or your password.
--David.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
a missing
cross-certification.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 07:09:36PM -0300, Faramir wrote:
David Shaw escribi??:
...
The fix is fairly simple conceptually. Just have the signing subkey
issue a signature on the primary key.
If the key was created with 1.4.9, the problem is already solved. As
of 1.4.3 (2006-04-03), GPG
want your key to be found...
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
is GNUPGHOME set to? Is it fully qualified or is there a ~ in
there?
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
, and that acts as a barrier on top
of all the other usual OpenPGP barriers.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
and send that hash to the stamper service (i.e. your
personal signature doesn't add much to the equation):
gpg --print-md sha256 (thedocument) | mail the-stamper-service
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org
it to the new
format, the old format, or even mix the two in a pretty pattern. And
without notifying the user. Again, the packet header for any packet
number less than 16 is utterly irrelevant in every possible way
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
--with-fingerprint --with-colons --fixed-list-mode --list-keys
0x80C7D647
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
to 1.0.6, you need to export your keyrings from
1.4.9 and then re-import them to 1.0.6. You cannot simply use the
same files.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
randomness into the regular kernel /dev/random pool.
http://warmcat.com/_wp/whirlygig-rng/
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=3242package_id=87734
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 05:22:01PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi David.
One more thing on this:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:18 AM, David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
Would gnupg understand these subpackets in a 0x1F signature?
Yes. It's a valid key as per the spec, even though
include the paket header in the signing but
just the body?
That is correct. The packet header is not relevant to the contents.
You can change the packet header from old style to new style, or
change the length representation at will.
David
___
Gnupg
is. There is a new version of the
spec that allows for more hashes, but I don't believe there is a
physical card based on the updated spec that you can purchase yet.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org
On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi again.
Ok this is a first bunch of questions on signatures (again both
specific for gnupg but perhaps also common for OpenPGP).
Would be glad if someone could help me with answering these (David?!
xD).
1) For the 0x11 signature the RFC
I think at this point you should take the discussion to the ietf-
openpgp list. This is really the GnuPG users lists, and the questions
are in-depth design questions for the protocol itself.
David
On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hello.
This time it's all about signature
possible for
backwards compatibility reasons.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
give you the
number you're looking for. In the --list-keys output, the size of the
key is the number after the pub and before the D or R that
indicates key type.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman
for the
vast increase in computer performance, and the vast reduction in cost,
we also know more about how to attack the problem than we did 10 years
ago.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:22:11PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi David.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM, David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
I'm currently reading RFC4880 and I think I have many minor questions...
is the gnupg-users list the right place to ask? Or is there any better
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Peter Thomas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com
wrote:
No, they don't have a concept of a packet type above 15. There are
only 4 type bits in the old-style packet header. :)
Yes, that was clear
Old programs will basically
data. A notary signature is made over another signature.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Saturday 24 January 2009 04:59:29 David Shaw wrote:
On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote:
Hi all,
I have an issue which is described below:
earlier i was using Gnupg-1.0.6 for my appliaction. Now i have
replaced it
with Gnupg
On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
OpenPGP benefits from the flexibility of being able to use multiple
algorithms.
The ability to use multiple algorithms is independent of how many
algorithms are in the spec and in each implementation. Algorithm
agility
Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short
expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys.
Would an expired key still work into the future? If, for example, I
sign/encrypt a file today using a key that expires next year, would I be
able to decrypt the file three years
On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:15 PM, David Newman wrote:
Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short
expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys.
Would an expired key still work into the future? If, for example, I
sign/encrypt a file today using a key that expires next
is accepted as a new RFC, Camellia will not be
turned on.
It is true that the Camellia code already exists in GnuPG, but this is
there to help test the implementation. It is not for general use, and
while we can't stop people from turning it on, they do so at their own
risk.
David
overwrite a file, but we still can defrag the hdd? Is there a
hardware feature that allows SO to defrag the hdd?
The two things have nothing to do with each other. It's like asking
why human beings can't fly, but we still can eat lunch.
David
___
Gnupg
that, but:
[ unknown] (1). Robert J. Hansen r...@...
Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES, IDEA
Digest: SHA1, SHA256, RIPEMD160
Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed
Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:14:15PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
You have the ability to do pretty much that, but:
I actually don't, but for policy reasons. My local policy is have
total control over what I send, but don't assert control over what I
receive. I guess
be really
happy.
To David Shaw: I didn't get your point, since both defragmenting and
overwriting files involve to be able to control what is written and
where is written... I think both concepts are related somehow.
This is incorrect. Defragmentation does not need to land on a exact
place
On Jan 23, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
This has nothing to do with your preference list. GPG will happily
decrypt messages to any cipher, whether it is in your preference list
or not, as per the spec:
Yes, which sort of demonstrates the point
situations.
In the GPG tarball, in the tools directory, there is a script
convert-from-106. Run it, and you should be in better shape.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
) source and Win32 binaries are downloadable at:
http://www.jabberwocky.com/software/paperkey/
Enjoy.
David
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4826 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl4k0cACgkQ4mZch0nhy8m+ZwCfVG+F+iJendo0cTFalqQF8cd2
qaEAoKDoxlh63EtfvKojXZ678pdv1t8T
=k3ba
-END PGP
it would resolve the issue.
My question is will GnuPG have this same issue or not?
No, it will not. GnuPG and PGP are two completely different code bases.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:10:43AM +0100, Ramon Loureiro wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:43:21AM +0100, Ramon Loureiro wrote:
Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:23, ramon.loure...@upf.edu said:
Could you give me some references
in LDAP,
then I'd go the LDAP route. If not, then a true database would
probably work better for you.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
a keyserver.
Given what you're describing, it sounds like a LDAP keyserver is the
way to go. GPG talks to it natively, and you can do any sort of
queries you like. For example, an email search can be as simple as:
(pgpuserid=*the-addr...@i.am.looking.for*)
David
give us the details on how the file was encrypted? Was it
encrypted with GPG or PGP? The encrypting command line would be the
most useful thing here. Also, please state the platforms (i.e. Unix,
Windows, etc) that you are encrypting and decrypting on.
David
name for a lot of different
gases, some of which were actually used for fire supression before we
saw what they were doing to the ozone layer.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
) 2007, 2008 David Shaw
This is free software. You may redistribute copies of it under the
terms of
the GNU General Public License http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
$ man paperkey and $ paperkey --help generated the expected outputs
data
and will not attempt to compress it further.
If you can send me such an encrypted file (my key is 99242560) I will
look at it and see what is going on.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman
sensitive (specifically the compressed
packet algo number, and the raw data size and mode from the literal
data packet).
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
wanted to ask both David Shaw and John Clizbe, if is
it OK if I send a copy of the compiled windows binary file to other
users... If I understood the license the right way, I can send it, as
long as I include the source code... but while I trust John didn't
modified the code before sending
explain why an encrypted file is so much larger than the decrypted
file - the decrypted file is truncated because the decryption failed
partway through. Of course, that could just be this rejected file.
Can you check if your real file has some non-OpenPGP cruft glued to
the end of it?
David
dont
know what this means?!
Is there any way i can recover my private key?
Do you have the file secring.gpg? If so, you have your private
key. If not, you don't.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org
subkeys, one with an expiration date and one without.
That said, what are you trying to do? What is the problem?
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
so that the
chosen UID appears first in the list.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
as two
# recipients. In these cases it is better to use the key ID.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
901 - 1000 of 1823 matches
Mail list logo
