On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:37:12 +0200
Ingo Klöcker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO all Free Software MUAs should use GnuPG's S/MIME instead of rolling
their own S/MIME implementation.
I couldn't agree more.
Anyway, thanks for clearing that up!
best regards
Paul
--
It isn't worth a nickle to
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:17:03 +0200
Ingo Klöcker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The S/MIME implementation in KMail (via
gpgme/gpgsm) is the only Free Software implementation of S/MIME that
has passed the Sphinx interoperability tests of the Federal Office for
Information Security (BSI)
And what
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
project [1]. It is used in KMail and probably also in Mutt (but I'm not
sure about the latter). The S/MIME implementation in KMail (via
If Mutt has been compiled with the gpgme development package installed,
it will have support. It is then
Paul wrote:
And what else did they test besides Kmail?
It doesn't really matter if there were a hundred other S/MIME
implementations tested by Sphinx, or if GnuPG's S/MIME implementation
was the only one. The Sphinx evaluation criteria are what matters--not
the competition.
If the
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:42:08 -0500
Robert J. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't really matter if there were a hundred other S/MIME
implementations tested by Sphinx, or if GnuPG's S/MIME implementation
was the only one. The Sphinx evaluation criteria are what matters--not
the
On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Paul wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:42:08 -0500
Robert J. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't really matter if there were a hundred other S/MIME
implementations tested by Sphinx, or if GnuPG's S/MIME
implementation was the only one. The Sphinx evaluation
Paul wrote:
So, I wondered, if KMail was the only MUA tested, then saying it is
the only one that passed seems like a bit of semantic trickery,
inferring, as it does, that others failed.
[sigh]
If you're going to misquote someone, at least do it accurately. The
original poster's exact
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:44:22 -0500
Robert J. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[sigh]
[bigger sigh]
If you're going to misquote someone, at least do it accurately. The
original poster's exact words were is the only Free Software
implementation of S/MIME that has passed the Sphinx
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul wrote: [back to the original,
so quotation accuracy is not the issue]
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:17:03 +0200
Ingo Kl?cker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The S/MIME implementation in KMail (via
gpgme/gpgsm) is the only Free Software implementation of S/MIME that
has passed the
Hi!
Am Donnerstag, den 03.04.2008, 18:41 +0200 schrieb Werner Koch:
The real reason for GnuPG-2 is the support for S/MIME.
I'm just curious and do not mean to be offensive or to belittle the
effort to implement S/MIME, but is GnuPG's S/MIME implementation
actually used somewhere?
As far as I
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think that last statement is no longer true. As of Thunderbird 2.0,
SeaMonkey 1.1 and Firefox 2.0 all 40 bit algorithms are disabled by
default (but the user may still enable them if he knows how to change
hidden prefs).
We had this
On Thursday 03 April 2008, Sven Radde wrote:
Hi!
Am Donnerstag, den 03.04.2008, 18:41 +0200 schrieb Werner Koch:
The real reason for GnuPG-2 is the support for S/MIME.
I'm just curious and do not mean to be offensive or to belittle the
effort to implement S/MIME, but is GnuPG's S/MIME
Werner Koch wrote:
[...]
necessary enhancements to their S/MIME implementation. The way Mozilla
works is basically: Show a positive result but don't annoy the user if
the signature is suspicious. The fact that Mozilla may fall back to 40
bit RC4 encryption may indicate that the developers do
Just updated to svn version gpg2 4739
Still have same problems trying to compile gpg2 under cygwin with the
gettext error:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -Wall -Wcast-align -Wshado
w -Wstrict-prototypes -Wformat -Wno-format-y2k -Wformat-security -Wpointer-arith
-o
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:45:52 +0200
Werner Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, KDE uses it.
It is also used by Claws Mail for its S/MIME plugin.
best regards
Paul
--
It isn't worth a nickle to two guys like you or me,
but to a collector it is worth a fortune
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 04:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Does 2.x work in Vista?
Yes. GnuPG-2 under Windows is pretty new so you might encounter some
problems. A binary distribution is not yet available. The best way to
build is to use the SVN trunk of gpg4win.org.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
But will it compile using in Vista using cygwin?
--
Kevin Hilton
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
I think I can answer my own question --- No!
I obtained svn sources, but during the make process, it failed with
the following:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -Wall
-Wcast-align -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -Wformat -Wno-format-y2k -Wformat-secu
rity
Hmm, thanks for the suggestion. I believe gnupg2 requires gettext
0.17 or greater -- cygwin ships with 0.16, with no higher version
available in its mirrors. I downloaded the 0.17 sources from here:
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/gnu/gettext/, compiled and installed. I'm
kind of stuck at this point.
Kevin Hilton wrote:
I think I can answer my own question --- No!
If you've gotten that far; ie, all other dependencies built, it's more like ---
Maybe!
I obtained svn sources, but during the make process, it failed with
the following:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include
Maybe this isnt for me. I did manage to get gettext compiled from
cvs. Its now 0.18-pre1. However I think Im getting stuck at the same
point:
gcc -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -Wall
-Wcast-align -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -Wformat -Wno-format-y2k
Clarification,
my libraries are in /usr/local/lib
Also this link statement seems strange to me. Possibly this is correct?:
-lreadline /usr/local/lib/libintl.dll.a
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'm just curious and do not mean to be offensive or to belittle the
effort to implement S/MIME, but is GnuPG's S/MIME implementation
actually used somewhere?
Well, KDE uses it. It is further the only Unix S/MIME application (with
KMail)
Does 2.x work in Vista?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
to your question, and one I suspect they will emphatically disagree
with. :)
Let's see ...
exist mostly as rules of thumb and handed-down wisdom. I use 1.4.x only
because of the latter kind of reasons: particularly, the Small Tools
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I've been on the list for some time but have thus far been a lurker,
and this is my first post. I have a very basic question.
I have seen for quite some time that GPG v2.x has been available. It
seems to offer some significant
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Scott Blystone wrote the following on 3/27/08 12:31 PM:
Hi All,
I've been on the list for some time but have thus far been a lurker,
and this is my first post. I have a very basic question.
I have seen for quite some time that GPG v2.x has
Scott Blystone wrote:
I've been on the list for some time but have thus far been a
lurker, and this is my first post. I have a very basic question.
Well, you sure did pick an excellent one to start off on. :)
I have seen for quite some time that GPG v2.x has been available. It
seems to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank-you to all who responded to my questions about v2.x. There were
many excellent points made. I need to stay on the v1.x branch as I am
using a Mac and would not be able to integrate v2.x with either Apple
Mail or Thunderbird. But I'm more
Scott Blystone wrote:
I need to stay on the v1.x branch as I am using a Mac and would not
be able to integrate v2.x with either Apple Mail or Thunderbird. But
I'm more content now! :-)
2.x can be used on the Mac, and can be integrated with Thunderbird. If
you want to use 1.4.x, by all means
On Fri March 28 2008, Werner Koch wrote:
source code. In particular, I have not seen any Mac binaries. Why does
it seem that virtually no one is using it?
I don't know about the Mac. However, all KMail users are more or less
required to use it and all modern distros come with GnuPG-2.
I
Paul Cartwright wrote:
is there an easy upgrade path to GnuPG-2 ?
Beyond sudo apt-get install gnupg2?
(The above works on Ubuntu 7.10, which is generally very comparable to
Debian. I have no Debian Etch systems available for testing.)
___
Robert,
I am currently grabbing Mac compiled binaries for the TEST1 version of
2.0.7. How would one integrate v2.x into Thunderbird, though? I think
the Enigmail version supports only GPG v1.x. Also, I'm absolutely
certain that the Apple Mail plugin for Leopard only supports v1.x. And
Scott Blystone wrote:
I am currently grabbing Mac compiled binaries for the TEST1 version of
2.0.7. How would one integrate v2.x into Thunderbird, though? I think
the Enigmail version supports only GPG v1.x.
Well, given that I'm part of the Enigmail team... :)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
source code. In particular, I have not seen any Mac binaries. Why does
it seem that virtually no one is using it?
I don't know about the Mac. However, all KMail users are more or less
required to use it and all modern distros come with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Scott Blystone wrote the following on 3/28/08 11:44 AM:
Thank-you to all who responded to my questions about v2.x. There were
many excellent points made. I need to stay on the v1.x branch as I am
using a Mac and would not be able to integrate
Scott Blystone wrote:
Robert,
I am currently grabbing Mac compiled binaries for the TEST1 version of
2.0.7. How would one integrate v2.x into Thunderbird, though? I think
the Enigmail version supports only GPG v1.x. Also, I'm absolutely
certain that the Apple Mail plugin for Leopard only
On Mar 28, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Scott Blystone wrote:
Robert,
I am currently grabbing Mac compiled binaries for the TEST1 version
of 2.0.7. How would one integrate v2.x into Thunderbird, though?
As I already indicated in a previous e-mail, you change the path of
Enigmail accordingly to
38 matches
Mail list logo
