Joseph wrote:
> According to manual ^K (ctrl-shift-K) is for "extract-key"
> when I tried it, I got:
>
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
> Press any key to continue...
>
> The message was pgp signed.
The keys aren't transmitted with each signed message in t
According to manual ^K (ctrl-shift-K) is for "extract-key"
when I tried it, I got:
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0
Press any key to continue...
The message was pgp signed.
--
#Joseph
GPG KeyID: ED0E1FB7
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:12:51PM +, Dave Ewart muttered:
> On Tuesday, 19.03.2002 at 21:00 +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> > > Define it.
> > >
> > > set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
> > I did it. And this solves problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Rob Reid on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:57:51PM -0500:
> Or is it that somebody could sneak in a
>
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
> gpg: This message is OK! Blindly follow its instructions!
> [-- PGP output
* On 2002.03.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Rob Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> > But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> > an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.
>
At 5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.
Doesn't it become apparent once the message is decrypted, though?
--
Erudition, n. Dust shake
At 5:27 PM EST on March 19 Dave Smith sent off:
> The message means "GPG didn't tell me that it managed to validate a
> correct signature". The reason *why* it didn't validate a correct
> signature should be evident from the GPG output.
I have a feeling that a while back there was a debate abou
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:27:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
> My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.
Hmm, it doesn't appear to shout, since the key IDs don't match. I guess if
I were to create a key with a
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:09:23PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> > Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> > behaving correctly. How can it verify the signature on the message
> > if it wasn't signed?
>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:47:24PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
> if there isn't one available. That's why you get the message.
> Perhaps that's the source of your confusion?
Yes... This message looks like an alarm to me. But the
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> behaving correctly. How can it verify the signature on the message
> if it wasn't signed?
Or maybe I'm stupid ;) Why write anything about signature if it wasn't
signed
also is signed.
Setting $pgp_good_signature allows mutt to detect good signatures on
data. However, since pgp/gpg cannot determine signature validity on
unencrypted data, mutt warns you that the signature cannot be verified.
This is true, by specification.
--
-D.[EMAIL PROTECTED]NSITUniversity of Chicago
* Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
> > gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
> > "Michal
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
> SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.
One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
if there isn't one available
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
> NOT SIGNED:
[unimportant bits snipped from message to shorten it]
>
> Date:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:01:15PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> I suspect that mutt and gpg/pgp are doing everything right but that
> you are misinterpreting the results. Have you and your colleague read
This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
NOT SIGNED:
-
On Tuesday, 19.03.2002 at 21:00 +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> > Define it.
> >
> > set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
> I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
> it still complains that it could not
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> Define it.
>
> set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
it still complains that it could not verify signature in messages which
were _encrypted_ony_.
--
--= Michal [EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> > > My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> > > seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> > > displays in
Ulli --
...and then Ulli Horlacher said...
%
% I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys).
% As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.
Good enough. I presume you'll ensure that pgp2.rc is configured properly
as well.
%
% Some of my e-mail partne
I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys).
As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.
Some of my e-mail partners still have only pgp 2. I am looking now for a
smart/automatic way to select pgp2.rc depending on the recipients address,
because pgp 2 us
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz muttered:
> Hi
>
> My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
> in status line information that signature could not be verified. And it
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> > My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> > seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> > displays in status line information that signature could not be
> > verified. And it di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Michal Kochanowicz on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100:
> My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> displays in status line information that sign
Hi
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
in status line information that signature could not be verified. And it
displays it despite of that in the message area one can see that message
is OK.
On 2001-09-17 21:22:54 -0400, Justin R. Miller wrote:
>In recent devel versions of Mutt, you can hit Esc-P to convert a
>message on-the-fly.
In particular, this also works when the PGP-signed or encrypted body
part is an attachment.
--
Thomas Roesslerhttp://log.does-n
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
>
> I don't use procmail; I use maildrop. What does this procmail recipe do? I
> would like to translate it into maildrop.
>
I use maildrop and this is what I use to convert clearsign's
Thus spake Will Yardley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm not sure
> if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically check signatures that
> use the old style method, although i'm sure a quick search on google
> would turn up something regardin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Björn Lindström wrote:
I don't use procmail; I use maildrop. What does this procmail recipe do? I
would like to translate it into maildrop.
> I think this widely circulated piece of code in your .procmailrc
> should take care of that.
>
> --
Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010918 01:50]:
> you can set an option to use the old style of encryption; i'm
> not sure if there's an easy way to make mutt automatically
> check signatures that use the old style method, although i'm
> sure a quick search on google would turn up something regar
Matt Spong wrote:
> While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of
> signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on
> the planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for
> example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text
Hi all
While we're on the subject of GPG, why is it that mutt's method of
signing messages seems to differ from that of every other mailer on the
planet? It doesn't seem to recognize some signatures, either (for
example, those of Jean-Sebastien Morisset on this list) - the text of
the signature
Benjamin Michotte muttered:
> In my .procmailrc, I've got
>
> ##
> ## PGP
> ##
>
> :0
> * !^Content-Type: message/
> * !^Content-Type: multipart/
> * !^Content-Type: application/pgp
> {
> :0 fBw
> * ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
> * ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
> | formail \
hello,
I know this is ot but ... :)
In my .procmailrc, I've got
##
## PGP
##
:0
* !^Content-Type: message/
* !^Content-Type: multipart/
* !^Content-Type: application/pgp
{
:0 fBw
* ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
* ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
| formail \
When reading a message signed by PGP/GPG, I get the following at the top of
the message:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon Jun 11 12:26:36 2001) --]
gpg: Signature made Thu Jun 7 23:40:47 2001 EDT using DSA key ID xx
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
[-- End o
| formail \
-i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=sign"
}
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:18:55PM -0500, Frank Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400, Lorin Winchester
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
> > ^K is sup
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:58:09 -0400, Lorin Winchester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
> ^K is supposed to extract a PGP/GPG public key from a message. When I try
> that, I get the following:
>
> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
> gpg: Total number processed: 0
> P
^K is supposed to extract a PGP/GPG public key from a message. When I try
that, I get the following:
gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
gpg: Total number processed: 0
Press any key to continue...
What do I need to do/change to sucessfully extract a public key?
--
Lorin Winchester
[EMAIL
1 at 10:35:06PM -0800, Jason Helfman wrote:
> When you have a verified a pgp/gpg key once, is it necessary for mutt
> to ask you to verify it again?
>
> --
> /Jason G Helfman
>
--
+ Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, GnuPG-key: 1024D/D5DE453D +
+ Fingerprint: 814E BD64 3
When you have a verified a pgp/gpg key once, is it necessary for mutt
to ask you to verify it again?
--
/Jason G Helfman
"At any given moment, you may find the ticket to the circus that has always
been in your possession."
Fingerprint: 6A32 3774 E390 33B5 8C96 2AA1 2BF4
On 2000-11-14 10:13:40 -0800, Timothy Grant wrote:
> I realize that there are a couple of procmail recipes that will
> fix incoming messages. However, is my only option on outgoing
> messages to clearsign? Is it possible to determine who gets
> clearsigned messages and who gets PGP/MIMED messages
Hi all,
We are in the middle of a mini-battle over PGP/GPG in my office. Having done
a bit of reading it appears that Mutt behaves correctly in dealing with
encrypted and signed messages and that Outlook and many other mailers do
not.
However, I am--at the moment--the only mutt user in this
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 12:59:19AM +0200, Mipam wrote:
> Anyway, some things are different. Normally when i wish
> to sign a message with pgp or completly encrypt a message
> then it asks for the key id for that adress.
> Normally, when i type a name its good enough, or just pressing
> enter gives
Hi all,
I use mutt 1.2i now. Everything is working just fine, as mutt
always does :)
Anyway, some things are different. Normally when i wish
to sign a message with pgp or completly encrypt a message
then it asks for the key id for that adress.
Normally, when i type a name its good enough, or just
2000-04-12-15:47:17 Hartmut Gehrke-Tschudi:
> I can't get my mutt to decrypt incoming pgp-Mails.
> I RTFM and all Faq.
> I run Mutt 1.0pre3i under Suse Linux 6.3 and
> Pretty Good Privacy(tm) 2.6.3i
>
> As I understand it there should be a command to decrypt within mutt.
> But I canot find it in
I can`t get my mutt to decrypt incoming pgp-Mails.
I RTFM and all Faq.
I run Mutt 1.0pre3i under Suse Linux 6.3 and
Pretty Good Privacy(tm) 2.6.3i
As I understand it there should be a command to decrypt within mutt.
But I canot find it in the help-menue.
I set everything to pgp2 in .muttrc
I a
On 2000-03-30 15:14:38 +0100, Chris Tilbury wrote:
> SSH does something like this - there's a "ssh-agent"
> program which you add keys to from your keyring by
> running a program.
Guess where the wording "passphrase-agent" came from. ;-)
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Thomas Roessler muttered:
> On 2000-03-30 12:06:42 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> > I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid
> > program called muttpgphelper, say, and gives the
> > passphrase to this program. When mutt wants to in
I didn't expect to start a religious war, but being Jewish, I can
appreciate this
I just wanted to know why. It was cached temporarily was enough for me,
but the responses were intriguing.
:>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 01:20:09PM +0200, Thomas Roessler muttered:
> On 2000-03-30 12:06:42 +0100,
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000330 13:27]:
> > I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid
> > program called muttpgphelper, say, and gives the
> > passphrase to this program. When mutt wants to invoke
> > gnupg it sends a request down a pipe to muttpgphelper
> > which then
On 2000-03-30 12:06:42 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid
> program called muttpgphelper, say, and gives the
> passphrase to this program. When mutt wants to invoke
> gnupg it sends a request down a pipe to muttpgphelper
> which then invok
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000330 13:06]:
> I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid program called
> muttpgphelper, say, and gives the passphrase to this program. When
> mutt wants to invoke gnupg it sends a request down a pipe to
> muttpgphelper which then invokes
I was thinking of something simpler: mutt spawns a suid program called
muttpgphelper, say, and gives the passphrase to this program. When
mutt wants to invoke gnupg it sends a request down a pipe to
muttpgphelper which then invokes gnupg and gives the passphrase to
gnupg down another pipe.
pgp_ti
* Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000330 02:09]:
> -you still need some authentication mechanism between gnupgd and
> applications, and this must somehow be fairly secure. I believe ssh2
> relies on process parent/child relationships to do
> authorization/authentication and I don't see this
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
> >
> > This would be u
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
>
> This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
> communication somew
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> > suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> > communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
>
> This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
> communication somewhere. Thus, the
* Thomas Roessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 14:57]:
> While this may sound nice in theory, I really don't want
> to maintain a program of the size of mutt running setuid
> root. You are free to fork off a version which does this.
>
> (I.e., we can stop this discussion.)
Sorry for violating th
On 2000-03-28 13:37:37 +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Perhaps another solution would be to have a separate
> suid program that remembers the passphrase and
> communicates somehow with the mutt process ...
This would be useless, since mutt would have to store that
communication somewhere.
On 2000-03-28 12:56:50 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
> And on those systems where it does need root, I say the
> best thing is to give the choice to the user.
While this may sound nice in theory, I really don't want
to maintain a program of the size of mutt running setuid
root. You are free to fork
Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> > root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> > user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> > for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> > some.
>
> *grrr*
>
>
* Lars Hecking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 12:31]:
> Just like gpg, mutt could make use of mlock() where available.
> It doesn't require root privileges on all systems.
And on those systems where it does need root, I say the best thing is to give
the choice to the user.
Terje
--
Tuj uh yaau f
> > I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> > root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> > user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> > for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> > some.
>
> *grrr*
>
> We don't go to great lengths with mu
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:26:19AM +0100, Lars Hecking wrote:
> Just like gpg, mutt could make use of mlock() where available.
> It doesn't require root privileges on all systems.
This mlock() stuff in GPG is giving me the hives (on HP-UX 10.20)
--
Ralf Hildebrandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.st
On 2000-03-28 11:08:20 +0200, Terje Elde wrote:
> I would vote in flavour of allowing mutt to be run as
> root, only to lock the memory blocks, then su to the
> user fast as hell. I'm not saying this is the right way
> for all users, but it might be a desirable feature for
> some.
*grrr*
We don
On 2000-03-27 22:50:11 -0600, Jason Helfman wrote:
> I notice then when pgp-signing something a mail
> message, I need to enter my password, respectively.
> However, if I send another message, pgp-signing, again.
> There is no need to enter my password. Is this being
> passed to a temp file?
It'
* Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000328 10:52]:
> However, a copy of the passphrase may still be left in your swap
> partition. (I think that only a process running as root can prevent
> memory from being written to swap, and even then only on some systems.
> If this is incorrect, perha
Jason Helfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I notice then when pgp-signing something a mail message, I need to enter
> my password, respectively. However, if I send another message,
> pgp-signing, again. There is no need to enter my password. Is this being
> passed to a temp file?
It's stored in memory
I notice then when pgp-signing something a mail message, I need to enter
my password, respectively. However, if I send another message,
pgp-signing, again. There is no need to enter my password. Is this being
passed to a temp file?
--
/helfman
"At any given moment, you may find the ticket to t
Hi Bennett!
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-01-29-19:41:36 Christopher Uy:
> > In the mean while, adding that 'h' flag to your rule should get
> > you by until then.
>
> Since the "h" makes it more efficient, it seems like a good idea to
> include anyway.
>
> Here's what I'm us
2000-01-29-19:41:36 Christopher Uy:
> In the mean while, adding that 'h' flag to your rule should get
> you by until then.
Since the "h" makes it more efficient, it seems like a good idea to
include anyway.
Here's what I'm using these days, purely swiped from the
PGP-Notes.txt that comes with mu
PGP message
* Christopher Uy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000130 01:25]:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:19:48PM +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
> >
> > I'm really tired, but unless I've misunderstood something, you wanted:
> >
>
> I was too literal with my writing. :-) I indented the example out of
> habit. :-)
>
> Do wh
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 11:19:48PM +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> I'm really tired, but unless I've misunderstood something, you wanted:
>
I was too literal with my writing. :-) I indented the example out of
habit. :-)
Do what you did, but put it at the beginning of the line with no
indentation
* Christopher Uy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000129 23:06]:
> Try signing the following in-line - without using mutt's built in PGP
> handling.
>
> E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When it's signed in-line and flows through procmail, the body get
> rewritten to:
>
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Terje Elde wrote:
>
> I have no problems with the mentioned procmail version under FreeBSD. I'm
> able to handle both encrypted and signed messages. The only patch applied
> by the FreeBSD port system to the source code itself is in recommend.c,
> thus it
* Christopher Uy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [000129 20:17]:
> Will lose a whitespace before the colon. I was pulling my hair out
> for a while trying to find out why some of my signed messages were
> coming back with bad signature errors.
I have no problems with the mentioned procmail version under Fre
ed in the FAQ and "Using Mutt with PGP/GPG" to work
correctly. I have verified this bug with the procmail maintainer and
he's going to hopefully have a fix before the next release.
In a nutshell, any line matching the regexp:
^[^ ]+[ ]+:
Will lose a whitespace befo
Sami --
...and then Sami Dalouche said...
% Hi all,
%
% I'm a user of mutt and like it but there are a few things I'd like to be able to
Welcome!
% do with it.
% So, It is possible to
% * Use Mutt with Usenet. I'm pretty sure we can't but is there a plan
% to program it ? Is it already
Hi all,
I'm a user of mutt and like it but there are a few things I'd like to be able to
do with it.
So, It is possible to
* Use Mutt with Usenet. I'm pretty sure we can't but is there a plan
to program it ? Is it already in a patch ? Will this patch be included in
the next version ?
On 1999-12-13 14:12:23 -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> As near as I can tell, PGP support was changed to be more
> flexible, so that any command that might be sent to PGP, or
> another encryption program, can be formatted and scripted using
> the command variables, instead of being hard-coded into
Alexander Dvorak t2069 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have read the notes on pgp in the doc directory, but I still wonder
> in which way the pgp (particularly the gpg) support was improoved ?
As near as I can tell, PGP support was changed to be more flexible, so
that any command that might be s
I am quite happy using mutt-1.0 and gpg.
Pgp support changed between mutt-1.0 and mutt-1.1.x.
I have read the notes on pgp in the doc directory,
but I still wonder in which way the pgp (particularly
the gpg) support was improoved ?
Excuse my curiosity,
alex
1999-11-23-06:04:27 J Horacio MG:
> In addition, I also modify gnupg/cipher/Makefile.in to add those
> algorithms to it. I'm not sure if this makes a difference at all,
> though.
I'm happy to say that that doesn't appear to be necessary. Very happy, since
my RPMming of the addons is fairly indep
Hi Jeremy!
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > > You'll see output like the following:
> > >
> > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon Nov 22 16:54:17 1999) --]
> > > gpg: Signature made Wed Aug 11 11:36:48 1999 MDT using RSA key ID 98645519
> > > gpg: requesting key 98645519 f
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 06:36:48PM -0500, Bennett Todd said:
>
> wget ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/contrib/idea.c
> wget ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/pub/gcrypt/contrib/rsa.c
> gcc -Wall -O2 -shared -fPIC -o /usr/lib/gnupg/idea idea.c
> gcc -Wall -O2 -shared -fPIC -o /usr/lib/gnu
On 1999-11-23 11:20:31 +0100, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Are you sure, that this is a good idea? It is brain dead to create
> keys or user ids without a self signature, because it is possible
> to add a new user id to a key without having the secret key. As
> far as I know, gnupg doesn't differe
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, David Ellement wrote:
> > I have never got a PGP 5 sig to work with GPG. But then maybe it
> > has something to do with the fact that they keys are no self
> > signed.
> It is possible to import keys without self signatures using the gpg
> option --allow-non-selfsigned-uid.
> > You'll see output like the following:
> >
> > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon Nov 22 16:54:17 1999) --]
> > gpg: Signature made Wed Aug 11 11:36:48 1999 MDT using RSA key ID 98645519
> > gpg: requesting key 98645519 from pgp5.ai.mit.edu ...
> > gpg: public key is 43099 seconds newer
Hi Eric!
> ... [ Deletia ]
>
> > > Then you know wrong.
> > >
> > > GPG is quite content with PGP5 messages out of the box. For PGP2 (ie,
> > > RSA/IDEA), you can download and install the correct modules for GPG and
> > > it will be glad to work with those. (Though it will probably refuse to
Hi Mutt!
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Sean Rima wrote:
> Anyone know of a way to have a hook so that Mutt locads the necessary
> gpg.rc/pgp.rc depending on who the message is from.
>
> Sean
Thanks to everyone who came forward with suggestions, I now have GPG working
for PGP 2 and 5 keys.
Thanks :)
S
Hi Rob!
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Rob Reid wrote:
> At 3:54 PM EST on November 22 Sean Rima sent off:
> > > Why not have one gpg (or pgp) config file for all correspondents?
> > >
> > The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list who use
> > PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not
On Monday, 22 November 1999 at 23:04, Sean Rima wrote:
> Hi A!
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
> >
> > There's two ways to do this.
> >
> > First, to solve the receiving part, on your end. grab the rsa.c
> > program that's on the GnuPG FTP site (ftp.gnupg.org:/pub/
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 04:04:50PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> Sean Rima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list
> > who use PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG
> > AFAIK.
>
> >From what I have read, GPG can
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:04:26PM +, Sean Rima wrote:
> Hi A!
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:
>
> > > > Why not have one gpg (or pgp) config file for all correspondents?
> > > >
> > > The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list who use
> > > PG
* Sean Rima ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [991123 00:16]:
> Hi A!
>
[ Deletia ]
>
> I grabbed rsa.c and idea.c and compiled and put to the lib directory. I then
> tried a couple of archived messages available but still it says the
> encryption is unknown. One did say about Not being a self signed sig.
>
On 991122, at 22:38:21, Sean Rima wrote:
> I have never got a PGP 5 sig to work with GPG. But then maybe it has
> something to do with the fact that they keys are no self signed.
It is possible to import keys without self signatures using the gpg
option --allow-non-selfsigned-uid.
--
David Elle
* Sean Rima ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [991122 23:50]:
> Hi brian!
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, brian moore wrote:
... [ Deletia ]
> > Then you know wrong.
> >
> > GPG is quite content with PGP5 messages out of the box. For PGP2 (ie,
> > RSA/IDEA), you can download and install the correct modules for GP
Hi David!
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, David DeSimone wrote:
> Sean Rima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list
> > who use PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG
> > AFAIK.
>
> >From what I have read, GPG can be config
* David DeSimone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [991122 23:31]:
> Sean Rima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is the fact that there are a few people on the Mutt list
> > who use PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG
> > AFAIK.
>
> >From what I have read, GPG can be configur
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo