> Does anyone knows where could I find a s/mime howto? I just got 1.5.0i and
> I want to try the s/mime support, but nothing comes with it to set it up.
> How to create my certificate/key? How can I make it(them) 'legal' for the
> top CA? Any help highly appreciated.
See d
Will Yardley wrote:
>
> you need to get one - thawte has free ones, or you can buy one from
> verisign.
to clarify... i'm sure you _could_ make your own using ssl... however
it's probably a good idea to get one from a root CA if you want the
certs to not spit out warnings of the sort that self s
David Collantes wrote:
> Does anyone knows where could I find a s/mime howto? I just got 1.5.0i
> and I want to try the s/mime support, but nothing comes with it to set
> it up.
check smime.rc in contrib/, check this site:
http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/encryption/openssl.html
> How
Does anyone knows where could I find a s/mime howto? I just got 1.5.0i and
I want to try the s/mime support, but nothing comes with it to set it up.
How to create my certificate/key? How can I make it(them) 'legal' for the
top CA? Any help highly appreciated.
Cheers,
--
David Collan
Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>
> a) live in a world where no one has locks on their doors, except for
> the very few people that know how to build their own lock from scratch
> and check it every morning for any scratches to indicate someone tried
> to break in, and the robbers just skip those and go ro
On Feb 02, Stephan Seitz [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:36:13PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote
> > Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example.
> > Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical
> > issues involved with using SSL, but beca
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 03:36:13PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote
> Neither of these are necessarily true. HTTPS is a good example.
> Most ebay and amazon users have no idea of any of the technical
> issues involved with using SSL, but because they use it anyway,
> their communication is more s
mbers emailed
to them unencrypted, unsafe file permissions, etc) people with a
low degree of technical sophistication will be happy when they see that
little yellow lock in their browser; this is more misleading than if
there was no encryption at all.
the same is true of s/mime to an exte
On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> [2] I guess this is where we disagree - you seem to think that there is
> little overlap between "the set of people who care about email security"
> and "the set of people who good mailers" .. i think there is a lot.
No, I think that
es, and issues of trust).
No, that's my whole point -- here's all the technical sophistication you
need in order to use S/MIME with the default installation of Outlook (or,
once they get the bugs worked out, Mozilla):
- If there is a blue ribbon icon, the message is genuine.*
- If you
i generally
> don't bother to encrypt or sign my communications with them.
This is the issue of why-to-sign-mails-anyway, and it comes up often enough
to ignore it here... for the purposes of the issue at hand (S/MIME compared
to OpenPGP, especially their respective sig sizes), let's just as
ng back and adding your key from a previous message).
also, if a key isn't there, mutt spits out this error (in the CVS
version at least):
Trying to extract S/MIME certificates...?Verification Failure
14047:error:2107C080:PKCS
imposing unneccessary expectations on any
> of them.
Below, i use the term "good mailer" to mean one which would support a mutt
S/MIME compression extension.
I correspond with many people who do not use a good mailer and will never be
convinced to use one. These people are in the majority on
On 2002-02-01 14:32:20 -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote:
>I could attach just a signature and leave out the certs when
>sending to certain mailing lists (using a hook to change
>smime_sign_command to toggle OpenSSL's "--nocerts" switch).
>However, this only decreases the smime.p7s size (after base6
Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Part of the problem with PGP is that only "people that know enough
> > to care" use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and
> > privately with everyone -- even Outlook and Netscape users.
>
> The peopl
On Feb 01, Mike Schiraldi [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people
> > that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer.
>
> Part of the problem with PGP is that only "people that know enough to care"
> use i
> It would only work among mailers that knew how to use it, but many people
> that know enough to care about this are going to be using a decent mailer.
Part of the problem with PGP is that only "people that know enough to care"
use it. My goal is to be able to communicate securely and privately
0 bytes to ~650 bytes. I'm don't think
> there's any way to get an S/MIME signature that's anywhere near as small as
> a PGP signature.
>
> I know it's bad netiquette to waste other people's bandwidth, but i also
> think unsecure email needs to be depreca
iling lists (using a hook to change smime_sign_command to toggle
OpenSSL's "--nocerts" switch). However, this only decreases the smime.p7s
size (after base64 decoding) from ~1700 bytes to ~650 bytes. I'm don't think
there's any way to get an S/MIME signature that
it:
The sigs are that big because they all include his public key. S/MIME does
not use keyservers like OpenPGP does. It also does not have a web of trust
concept, instead relying on central CAs. They consider this an advantage,
since it means you can always verify a message regardless of your current
Mike Schiraldi wrote:
>
[...]
Just a question: Is it really necessary to attach at each message the
smime.p7s file (your signature or so)? It has always about the 10th size
of your underlying posting, so it increases the size of your posting way
much.
What is it for at all? Why is this (I think)
Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > presumably the private key should be 0600, and maybe the directory
> > 0700?
>
> The directory should be 0700 -- did you use the script's "init"
> command, or make the directories yourself? If you used "init" and it's
> not 0700, let me know.
yeah i created the directo
> presumably the private key should be 0600, and maybe the directory 0700?
The directory should be 0700 -- did you use the script's "init" command, or
make the directories yourself? If you used "init" and it's not 0700, let me
know.
Just to be safe, i just sent Thomas a patch which sets umask 07
so i am trying to learn a bit about s/mime and i've been playing around
with s/mime support in 1.5.0.
i used the smime_keys.pl script to import my keys. should this file be
setting the default permissions on my private key thus?
zugzug% ls -al d4cbff8d.0
-rw-r--r--1 wi
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Brian Clark wrote:
> * Knute ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 28. 2002 16:26]:
> [...]
> > When I do a dpkg -S mutt.ncurses it was the mutt-utf8 package that
> > created it. Since that is the one that is linked to slang.
> OK, here's what I get:
> (~)% dpkg -S mutt.ncurses
> dpk
* Knute ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 28. 2002 16:26]:
[...]
> The name is mutt.ncurses, and I didn't have do dl anything extra to
> have it on here. Don't actually know where it came from to be honest
> with you. I do have both slang and ncurses on my machine. And I am
> using unstable as well. And
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Brian Clark wrote:
> * Knute ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 28. 2002 11:04]:
> > I'm currently using debian, so I don't know about other distros. What
> > I've found is that with debian, there is mutt (linked with slang),
> > and mutt.curses (linked with ncurses). As I use kbd sh
* Knute ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Jan 28. 2002 11:04]:
> I'm currently using debian, so I don't know about other distros. What
> I've found is that with debian, there is mutt (linked with slang),
> and mutt.curses (linked with ncurses). As I use kbd shortcuts anyway,
> I simply set up a shortcut to mu
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> > I know nothing about Ncurses, not even how to see it's version, but
> > tried to link with it: The indicator seems to react well. It takes the
> > reversed colors the current index line should be. But, for an unrelated
> > to your patch reason, t
> I know nothing about Ncurses, not even how to see it's version, but
> tried to link with it: The indicator seems to react well. It takes the
> reversed colors the current index line should be. But, for an unrelated
> to your patch reason, the color scheme of all the screen is messed up:
> in
> This context colored indicator patch seems to have no effect when
> Mutt (versions 1.2.5 and 1.3.27) is linked with slang (version 1.4.4).
Yow! I'll take a look and post my findings.
--
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
[followups set to users list only]
Hello Mike,
On Friday, January 18, 2002 at 2:34:51 PM -0500, Mike Schiraldi wrote:
> indicator.patch changes the behavior of the indicator bar when it is
> defined as "mono indicator reverse" (the default). [...] With this
> patch, the indicator bar, when
The S/MIME patch i posted for 1.3.26 also works with 1.3.27.
--
Mike Schiraldi
VeriSign Applied Research
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
[18.01.02 14:34 -0500] Mike Schiraldi <-- :
> Attached is a version of the S/MIME patch that will work with
> mutt-1.3.26. (Or at least it appears to work -- let me know if you have any
> problems)
Yes, I have dam.. fu... problems with it !!!
Did you ever hear that you do not po
Works well for me. The patches didn't apply without some offsets, but
they all applied with no rejs.
Thanks,
pete
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Schiraldi, Mike wrote:
> Attached is a version of the S/MIME patch that will work with
> mutt-1.3.26. (Or at least it appears to work -- let me
Pete Toscano wrote:
> Does anyone know if/when the S/MIME patch will become part of the main
> mutt tree? I've been using Oliver Ehli's S/MIME patch for
> quite a while now and, for most things, it works fine. The most
> recent patch is for 1.3.23 and more and mo
Hello,
Does anyone know if/when the S/MIME patch will become part of the main
mutt tree? I've been using Oliver Ehli's S/MIME patch for
quite a while now and, for most things, it works fine. The most
recent patch is for 1.3.23 and more and more rej files are being
produced with every
With a bit of effort, I was able to patch 1.3.20 with the S/MIME mods
(using it now) and, while I was able to shoehorn the patch into 1.3.22,
the colors were all messed up, so I'm back using 1.3.20. I'd love to
see an update out for the S/MIME patch.
pete
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Matej
Hi,
does anybody have experience with %subj%? Do you know, whether the
project is dead, or there will be some support for the thing even for
versions higher then 1.3.17?
Thanks for any reply
Matej
--
Matej Cepl, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 0
Hi!
anybody has expirience with S/MIME stuff in Mutt? People here are playing
with PKCS certificates, and I would like to join the fun ;)
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo Cunha - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Novis - Dir. Rede - ISP <http://www.novis.pt/>
Ed. Atrium Saldanha - Pça. Dq. Sald
2001-01-08-14:12:15 Ralf Hildebrandt:
> Are there any S/MIME command line tools that could be used with mutt?
The only one I've heard of is the OpenSSL command-line utility,
openssl(1). But would integrating invocations of openssl's cmdline
into mutt, call out the Debian license
Hi!
Are there any S/MIME command line tools that could be used with mutt?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Engineerinnominate AG
Diplom-Informatiker the linux architects
tel: +49.30.308806-62 fax: -698
2000-06-22-08:31:12 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Someone at work has a requirement for a command line MUA to use
> with S/MIME. He has to automate sending E-Mail to customers with
> X.509 certificates in their mail programs. He says "I think the
> RSA BSAFE toolkit is what I nee
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 07:31:12AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Someone at work has a requirement for a command line MUA to use with
> S/MIME. He has to automate sending E-Mail to customers with X.509
> certificates in their mail programs. He says "I think the RSA BSAFE
>
Someone at work has a requirement for a command line MUA to use with
S/MIME. He has to automate sending E-Mail to customers with X.509
certificates in their mail programs. He says "I think the RSA BSAFE
toolkit is what I need."
Does anyone know how easy it would be to hook this into
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-03-27-06:06:50 Magnus Stenman:
> > What is the status on the S/MIME implementation
> > that was mentioned on the list a while ago?
> I've not been interested in it much myself, but as best I can recall
> from what I saw
2000-03-27-06:06:50 Magnus Stenman:
> What is the status on the S/MIME implementation
> that was mentioned on the list a while ago?
I've not been interested in it much myself, but as best I can recall
from what I saw on the list, S/MIME would be trivial to do, might
not even require
What is the status on the S/MIME implementation
that was mentioned on the list a while ago?
Is it in the current snapshot?
/magnus
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2000-02-09 18:15:03 -0500, Adam Sherman wrote:
>
> > Would it be possible to use Mutt with S/MIME cryptography?
>
> It wouldn't be difficult to add support for this to mutt, once you
> have a command-line based t
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:44:31PM -0500, Adam Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:57:32AM -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2000, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > On 2000-02-09 18:15:03 -0500, Adam Sherman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 06:57:32AM -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2000, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > On 2000-02-09 18:15:03 -0500, Adam Sherman wrote:
> >
> > > Would it be possible to use Mutt with S/MIME cryptography?
> >
> > It wouldn'
On 2000-02-09 18:15:03 -0500, Adam Sherman wrote:
> Would it be possible to use Mutt with S/MIME cryptography?
It wouldn't be difficult to add support for this to mutt, once you
have a command-line based tool with the cryptographic functionality.
--
http://www.guug.de/~roessler/
Would it be possible to use Mutt with S/MIME cryptography?
Some of my clients are using this and it would be good of me to be
able to handle their mail.
Thanks,
A.
--
Adam Sherman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+1 (613) 223-5746
PGP signature
wrapper)
>
> > ftp://ftp.franken.de/pub/crypt/cryptlib/
>
> > The code is in the beta directory with a pdf of the manual too.
>
> I've been trying to get some simple S/MIME certificate verification
> out of this beast, but haven't had any success so far. But
irectory with a pdf of the manual too.
I've been trying to get some simple S/MIME certificate verification
out of this beast, but haven't had any success so far. But this may
quite well be due to some non-understanding of the manual on my part.
As Rich said, a working wrapper from
On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 11:06:47AM -0400, Jos Purvis wrote:
> Hiya. I'm a rabid user of Mutt (ha, ha), and have been using it
Ouch
> signing features (the encryption would be used occasionally but not
> exclusively). I don't know much about S-MIME, so forgive a si
Hiya. I'm a rabid user of Mutt (ha, ha), and have been using it
at work with great success. Unfortunately, my company wants everyone to
use Netscape Mail, to which I'm violently allergic. The problem is that
they want to roll out S-MIME for everyone, to start using its digit
On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 01:11:35PM +0200, Martin Keseg - Sun Slovakia - SE wrote:
> Is here a support for:
> S/MIME Cryptographic Signature [applica/x-pkcs7-si, base64, 3.3K]
Not at the moment - the supporting libraries have just been released in a
format that can be used in Mutt and the
Hello,
Is here a support for:
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature [applica/x-pkcs7-si, base64, 3.3K]
--
Keso
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:38:15PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> > My understanding is that you'd have to start from scratch - the tool
> > kit is US/Gov developed and blocked from export.
>
> Thomas doesn't need to do so, because someone else did:
That's what I was hoping - I have a probabl
On Thu, 08 Apr 1999, rfi from Rich Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 1999 at 12:34:47PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > Not yet. I'm playing with the thought to write a cryptlib-based
> > command line tool to handle S/MIME messages, and to integrate it
> > with mutt.
; > sigs are?
>
> Not yet. I'm playing with the thought to write a cryptlib-based
> command line tool to handle S/MIME messages, and to integrate it
> with mutt.
How ? Have you looked at the S/MIME encoding specification ? I have,
although I have not yet implemented it. My
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF; micalg=pgp-sha1;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
