-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/4/19 11:12 AM, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Separation of duties is an important part of the Unix philosophy. Thus
> we use gpg-agent to handle the operations which require private keys and
> also for some minor things which benefit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/3/19 4:15 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Werner recently mentioned an undocumented command for this.[1]
>
> On 27/08/2019 11:30, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> You can extra the signature from the encrypted+signed data:
>>
>> gpg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/3/19 1:24 AM, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> But it makes no sense. This particular private key has no passphrase. So
> shouldn't signing work in batch mode as well ?
Are you sure? Try to --edit-key and select that key (not the cert key).
Then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/3/19 1:55 AM, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> I'm asking if there's a way to decrypt the message while preserving the
> existing signed message. Of course, this requires the private
> decryption key, but it should *not* require the private signing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> Does GnuPG provide a mechanism to decrypt an encrypted-and-signed
> message in such a way that preserves the original signature, such that
> the original signature can be independently verified by an arbitrary
> third-party?
The term you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/2/19 10:35 AM, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> how can I simply encrypt a file in "batch mode", ie in a script, without
> user interaction, without need for the user to type password, without
> gpg agent?
Assuming you're using gpg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/1/19 2:50 PM, Michał Górny via Gnupg-users wrote:
> However, the original signature was revoked, so it's obviously no longer
> valid. Now, I am able to work around this by deleting the old
> signatures from local copy of the key, and signing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/29/19 8:33 PM, raf via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this was mentioned before but I've just come
> across a novel approach to email encryption that
> doesn't do end-to-end encryption, but rather it
> encrypts email upon receipt so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/22/19 10:44 AM, Arbiel Perlacremaz wrote:
> I read the gpg man page, but I haven't been able to find the appropriate
> commands, either to decompress the file or to extract the original file.
gpg -o -d
"man gpg" is your friend.
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/18/19 2:12 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> (redacted)... there are drugs and other specialists which
> can make you talk and reveal that presence. At some later time
> i would expect a court order to access log etc. data in and of the
> brain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/17/19 3:38 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> You know, i would say people should be advised to use the most
> compatible, most secure keys available for their "very key".
> Regardless of computing cost that is. And use specific "weaker",
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/8/19 9:34 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> It would be really nice, if Thunderbird could add an option to use the
> gpg key storage instead of its own, but so far the developers want to
> always keep the Thunderbird key storage separately
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/8/19 9:21 AM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 10/7/19 4:59 PM, Sheogorath via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Protonmail on the other hand is able to speak OpenPGP, they just don't
>> do it. Not even when you answer to a OpenPGP encrypted email,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/5/19 7:19 AM, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:15, Stefan Claas said:
>
>> installing MUAs and plug-ins, besides of GnuPG) point them to the FAQ as
>> learning resource and then show them as modern alternative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/4/19 3:35 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> And do those 20 companies business with their customers were GnuPG
> signatures are legally binding, like real signatures on letters?
_At least_ 20 fortune 500 businesses _that I know of_. Mind you, I'm not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/3/19 5:53 PM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> And this is probably the reason why digital signatures from GnuPG were never
> been adopted (for business related things) in the EU and elsewere.
I don't know about the EU, but I can name at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
With all due respect... NO.
It is not wise to impede on the power-users who use GPG due to the availability
of the various configurations that brought us here in the first place.
On 9/30/19 9:43 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:[snip]
> 4/ Here is my
17 matches
Mail list logo
