Am 21 Apr 2008 um 9:43 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
So, GnuPG 1.4 implements OpenPGP. GnuPG 2.0 implements OpenPGP
and S/MIME.
So 2.0 is better than 1.4 if you need S/MIME, otherwise not.
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0
Am 26 Apr 2008 um 2:20 hat Robert J. Hansen geschrieben:
Dirk Traulsen wrote:
gpg == GnuPG == GnuPG Classic
gpgs == GnuPG+S == GnuPG+S/MIME
My own two cents' worth:
(...)
Call it GnuPS, for the GNU Privacy Suite. If additional tools,
technologies, etc., are added to GnuPG
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 19:47 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
The solution to this is pretty clear, we need to read all public key
encrypted packets first and sort them so that own keys come first
followed by other keys and finally by the wild card keys. This also
allows us to order the trial
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 13:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:55:28PM +0100, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
What I meant, was something like this mockup:
==
C:\gpg --recipient-keys ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg
gpg: file ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg was encrypted to the following keys
Am 28 Feb 2008 um 10:04 hat Wilhelm Müller geschrieben:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:23:34 -0500, David Shaw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
David Why?
David I'm serious - what is the use case here? How often do
David people need to list all recipients of a file?
I agree with David,
--recipient-keys ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg
gpg: file ENCRYPTED_FILE.gpg was encrypted to the following keys:
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID 1643B926, created 2002-01-28
David M. Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg: encrypted with 4096-bit ELG-E key, ID E192093D, created 2005-10-21
Dirk Traulsen
Am 27 Feb 2008 um 9:51 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
Dirk Traulsen dirk.traulsen at lypso.de
wrote on Wed Feb 27 10:00:25 CET 2008
You don't believe me to enter 9 times a complete passphrase, do
you?
i agree with you completely that it would be a major annoyance to
have to enter
Am 26 Feb 2008 um 9:40 hat Sven Radde geschrieben:
Hi!
Dirk Traulsen schrieb:
b. some keys do not belong to me in a common keyring.
I am really not sure whether that is a good idea at all. Granting other
people (write!) access to my secret keyring would be a troubling
thought, even
Am 8 Feb 2008 um 15:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:07:21PM +0100, Sebastien Chassot wrote:
Hi,
I can't find how list who's a file encrypted for ? I've encrypt several
files with different recipients, but I don't remember which.
Just run 'gpg' on the file,
a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: Dirk Traulsen (dtl-2) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4096-bit ELG-E key, ID E192093D, created 2005-10-21 (main key ID
CDDB9911)
Please enter the passphrase:
=
Dirk Traulsen
that it is no artefact on my side, I checked the archives.
See http://marc.info/?l=gnupg-usersm=120397363028142
and compare to below. There is definitely something wrong on your side.
- Original Message
From: Dirk Traulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Cc: GnuPG mailing list gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Am 2 Nov 2007 um 11:52 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
The new OpenPGP standard has been published.
Congratulations for the new RFC!
But, since 2004, I report regularly at least once a year that the
example for the Radix-64-Encoding in '6.5. Examples of Radix-64' on
page 59 in the rfc is wrong.
Am 27 Jul 2007 um 10:31 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
Enter debug in the edit menu to see what packets you have in your
keyblock.
Is debug and its output format documented somewhere?
Dirk
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Am 4 Jun 2007 um 20:56 hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
When I run the check command in edit-key mode, it shows me
something like
sig!
or sig!1
or sig!3
What does this mean?
Hi Hardeep,
there are two answers to your question: A simple one and a difficult
one.
It's easy to answer
Hi!
I found 3 problems in the manual:
1. In the new manual the following options are missing:
--batch
--yes
--no
2. The manual has now strange gaps in it (at least under German
WinxP):
Here are 3 examples:
SYNOPSIS
gpg [--homedir ___] [--options ] [___] ___ []
Am 21 Apr 2007 um 23:25 hat Henry Hertz Hobbit geschrieben:
Once your changes are done, make sure you generate a new
revocation file with a:
$ gpg -a --gen-revoke 98E6705C rev_cpollock_embarqmail_com.asc
Is it really necessary to generate a new revocation certificate if
you only change
Am 27 May 2006 um 19:55 hat Jørgen Lysdal geschrieben:
I have a revoker on my key that i would like to remove, but i cant
find a way to do this. Can anyone help?
If you sent your key to a keyserver, then you are out of luck. There
is no way to take something back you sent to a keyserver. You
Hi!
I started this thread to make a request for a change of the behaviour
of the 'clean' option:
Please make an option to delete signatures, for which there is no
corresponding signing key on the local keyring.
When there was some support for my idea, but no reaction from the
developers, I
Am 29 Oct 2005 um 2:25 hat Henry Hertz Hobbit geschrieben:
On 27 Oct 2005 Dirk Traulsen wrote:
snip
So here is my feature request: Please make an option to delete
signatures, for which there is no corresponding signing key on
the local keyring.
snip
I hope I am
Am 11 Sep 2005 um 23:01 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 09:59:53AM -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
There is perhaps an argument to be made for a
super clean that does clean and also removes any
signature where the signing key is
not present (in
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:29 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Dirk Traulsen wrote:
Interestingly there is a difference, whether I use '--import' to get
a key from a 'key.asc' or '--recv-key' to import it from a
keyserver. It reproducibly asks for two
Am 9 Sep 2005 um 10:46 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
Unfortunately not, because without the signing key, gpg can't tell if
a signature is valid or not. If there is no way to tell if a
signature is valid then the wrong thing might happen in cleaning.
Here's an example:
signature 1 from key
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
2. There is a line after the '--recv-key' which I don't understand:
'gpg: kein uneingeschränkt vertrauenswürdiger Schlüssel 0022FA10
gefunden' (my english translation: gpg: no ultimately trusted key
0022FA10 found) As you can see in the
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 20:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
Yes, I see what happened now. It's just a misunderstanding. clean
can't work unless you have the key that issued the signature that you
want cleaned (so it can know which signatures to remove). In your
case, you need to fetch key CA57AD7C
Am 7 Sep 2005 um 19:23 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
I can't seem to duplicate your problem here. Are you sure you
saved the result when you exited from --edit-key?
As you can see, I did.
I get the message 'already clean', but the sigs are still there.
In spite the output being partly in
Am 8 Sep 2005 um 16:00 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
I'm trying, but I still can't duplicate the problem. Can you put
together a simple keyring and simple gpg.conf file that still shows
the problem?
I did what you asked me to do and now I'm completely confused!
First I deleted my gpg.conf,
26 matches
Mail list logo
