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
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 the
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 with encrypted
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
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
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 status
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 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 verify
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 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:
* 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 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?
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?
Or
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 an
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 about
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 shaken
* 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.
Doesn't it
-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
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.
-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
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 displays
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 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 Roessler
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
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 of
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.
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 regarding
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 \
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 \
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 of PGP
^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
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
Press any key to continue...
What do I
\
-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 supposed to extract a PGP/GPG public key from a message
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 3288 40E7 E88E 3D92 C3F8 EA94
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
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?
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 a
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
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
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 the
* 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 as
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.
* 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
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 invokes
* 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 invokes
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,
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 invoke
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 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 useless, since
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.
* 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, perhaps
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's
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't
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]
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 mutt_dotlock to
* 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
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*
We don't go to
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
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.
* 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 the
* 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 somewhere.
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
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 using these
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 before the
* 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
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 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 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]) [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 what you did,
PGP message
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
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
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
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 sent
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
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
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 than the
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
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
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 from
1999-11-22-14:28:52 Sean Rima:
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.
I use one .gnupg/options regardless of who the message is run, and always use
gpg. I'm pretty sure I don't understand what you're asking for.
to
choice the correct encryption tool depending on who the message is from
This is the single biggest reason why I haven't switched over to
gpg yet. Problem is, there's bucketloads of information about
pgp/gpg interoperability, but I haven't found the time yet to
put all the pieces together
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 08:54:23PM +, Sean Rima wrote:
Hi Bennett!
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Bennett Todd wrote:
1999-11-22-14:28:52 Sean Rima:
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.
I use one
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 able to be used in GPG AFAIK.
Ah but they are! Look for RSA,
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 08:54:23PM +, Sean Rima 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
PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG AFAIK. I have both
GPG and
1999-11-22-15:54:23 Sean Rima:
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.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
If anybody is using patented algorithms that aren't supported in the core
gpg
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 configured or built with external
module support, so that it can read and use
Hi brian!
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, brian moore 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.
I use one .gnupg/options regardless of who the message is run, and always use
gpg. I'm pretty sure I
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
PGP2 and PGP5. These keys are not able to be used in GPG AFAIK. I have both
GPG and
1999-11-22-17:04:50 David DeSimone:
From what I have read, GPG can be configured or built with external
module support, so that it can read and use these RSA and IDEA based
message formats.
However, I haven't really found any good instructions for building such
a version of GPG. There are
* 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 configured or built
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 configured or built
* 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 GPG and
it
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
* 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 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
PGP2 and PGP5.
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 be configured
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
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 able to be
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 :)
Sean
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
