On Tuesday 25 November 2014 at 10:39:27, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
This is supposed to be http://bugs.python.org/issue1670765, which is
claimed to be resolved.
Thanks for the link, I did not look into this for a few years.
If it's not resolved, someone needs to let the python devs know about
Hello!
I just couldn't resist the chance to play devil's advocate some more...
;-)
(Werner: Sorry about the duplicate, I fat-fingered the reply-all)
Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org wrote:
It would be far, far more useful to have a signature for each part so
instead of a binary pass/fail, you
Il 26/11/2014 15:30, Bjarni Runar Einarsson ha scritto:
And if we further factor in viruses and phishing and
exploits and spam, then widely deployed PGP/MIME might make the real
world less secure, not more. :-P
Maybe including a mandatory proof-of-work that includes addressee
identity might
My proposal doesn't have this problem. I want the manifest to summarize the
entire content of the message, including sha256 (or whatever is considered
good) fingerprints of each part.
1) What does a checksum add beyond the OpenPGP Modification Detection Code
(MDC)?
2) Why doesn't an attacker
Hi Bjarni,
On Monday 24 November 2014 at 10:25:43, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
Bernhard Reiter bernh...@intevation.de wrote:
And thank you for the friendly reply. :-)
you are welcome! I know that some people sound a little but grumpy, but this
mostly is the case, because they feel like they
On 11/25/2014 03:42 AM, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Monday 24 November 2014 at 10:25:43, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
It is tempting to blame the Python libraries, but the fact
is that they do generate valid MIME - after swearing at Python for
months, it dawned on me that it's probably the
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:42, bernh...@intevation.de said:
Oh, what about the idea to just ship a MIME parser with GnuPG. ;)
tools/gpgparsemail is such a thing. It translates a MIME structure in
something easier to process with standard Unix utilities. Mainly a
debugging tool but the code served
Bjarni,
On Sunday 23 November 2014 at 14:12:47, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2014-11-21_To_PGP_MIME_Or_Not.html
thanks for working on Free Software and for discussing questions
like this in the open!
Note that we already support incoming PGP/MIME and have no
Hi Bernhard,
Bernhard Reiter bernh...@intevation.de wrote:
thanks for working on Free Software and for discussing questions
like this in the open!
And thank you for the friendly reply. :-)
The short answer (from someone that was in the project team of S/MIME
implementations for mutt and
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:25, b...@pagekite.net said:
installed, because if you download the raw encrypted payload for
processing offline, then after decryption you end up with a fragment of
MIME and tools for working with such fragments barely exist outside the
world of development tools
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:12:48 +0100, Werner Koch stated:
To be fair, that changed with Outlook 2010. We merely had not the
resources to change GpgOL to make use of the new Outlook structure.
Interesting; has there been any movement on that front? I use Outlook 2013 at
my office and that would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
Of course, today encryption is so rare that the only folks encountering
this problem are nontechnical people, journalists and activists and the
like, and they just give up and us something else to communicate
On 24 November 2014 12:44:31 GMT+00:00, Bjarni Runar Einarsson
b...@pagekite.net wrote:
Wrap in a message/rfc822 part.
If PGP/MIME had proposed this from the start, then I wouldn't be able
to
make cheap shots about Subject lines and indeed, living with the other
problems would be far more
On 24 November 2014 19:45:33 GMT+00:00, I wrote:
On 24 November 2014 12:44:31 GMT+00:00, Bjarni Runar Einarsson
b...@pagekite.net wrote:
Wrap in a message/rfc822 part.
If PGP/MIME had proposed this from the start, then I wouldn't be able
to
make cheap shots about Subject lines and indeed,
Hi Simon, thanks for the comments.
Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
I currently use Thunderbird and Mutt, both of which can open emails
within emails as MIME parts, but I'm fairly certain Outlook from Office
2002 coped with them too. Granted, it's still an extra step with those
MUAs, but
Hello gnupg-users!
I am the lead dev on Mailpile, a free software e-mail client where we're
doing our best to improve the usability of PGP-encrypted e-mail. I have
been pondering for quite some time the relative merits of various ways
of formatting otugoing encrypted mail, and this weekend I took
As folks on this list have been using GPG in the real world longer than
most, I would very much appreciate your feedback, experience and
opinions.
This subject tends to get a lot of very passionate opinions on both
sides. The FAQ covers both:
On Sunday, 2014-11-23 13:12:47 Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2014-11-21_To_PGP_MIME_Or_Not.html
The tl;dr is that it might be worth dropping PGP/MIME for outgoing
encrypted mail and instead use a more ad-hoc approach which
interoperates with more mail clients.
Hi Samir,
Samir Nassar sa...@samirnassar.com wrote:
I would care more about the arguments if you were able to re-state them
while dropping references to legacy email clients. I don't think new mail
clients have an obligation to be backwards compatible.
If you, and others, think the
Hi Bjarni,
Our choice was based on compatibility and reliability. For an outgoing
encrypted message, if there's an attachment GoodCrypto sends PGP/MIME,
otherwise PGP in the body. We decrypt both formats.
Glad to hear Mailpile is in Beta. Good luck!
Nan
GoodCrypto warning: Anyone could have
On Sunday 23 November 2014 13:12:47 Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
Hello gnupg-users!
I am the lead dev on Mailpile, a free software e-mail client where we're
doing our best to improve the usability of PGP-encrypted e-mail. I have
been pondering for quite some time the relative merits of
On Sunday 23 November 2014 18:05:03 Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson wrote:
Hi Samir,
Samir Nassar sa...@samirnassar.com wrote:
I would care more about the arguments if you were able to re-state them
while dropping references to legacy email clients. I don't think new mail
clients have an
22 matches
Mail list logo
