hi,
i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but "check
digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty "PGPlog"
window. anyone else with the same problems?
ciao,
noniq
CONFUSING ECHELON---
FBI CIA NSA IRS ATF BATF DOD
Hi noniq,
On Montag, 11. Oktober 1999 at 1:45:09 you wrote:
n> hi,
n> i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but "check
n> digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty "PGPlog"
n> window. anyone else with the same problems?
I have exactly the same problem using P
Hello noniq
On Monday, October 11, 1999, 1:45:09 AM, noniq wrote:
n> i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but "check
n> digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty "PGPlog"
n> window. anyone else with the same problems?
Yes, i had the same problem, but only unt
Thursday, October 14, 1999, 8:56:25 AM, Claudius wrote:
> (a) "Version: PGP 6.0.2i" (see below)
> (b) adds "- " above "With best..." (see below)
> (c) destroys quoted block (see above)
> (d) "Hash: SHA1" (see above)
> Why (a),(b),(c) and what does (d) mean?
> Auto-check-signature doesn't wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello, Claudius.
On Thursday, October 14, 1999, 9:56:25 AM, you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> I' using PGP 6.5.1 (US, since pgpi.com announced Version i for
> October, 1st and nothing happens). Option "PGP->sign" writ
Hi!
Keith Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not work":
> Fascinating. I'm also using 6.5.1. I just tested it, and mine is
> identified as 6.5i in the signature! FWIW, I have never had an
> international version installed on this PC. Is T
Hello, everyone.
On Thursday, October 14, 1999, 5:05:02 PM, Christian wrote:
> Hi!
> Keith Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not work":
>> Fascinating. I'm also using 6.5.1. I just tested it, and mine is
>> identified as 6.5i i
Hi!
Keith Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not work":
>> The version number is hardcoded into the plugin (batpgp65.dll).
> Ah...So it's just a typo?
No. They obviously assumed that most people are using the
international version of
Hi!
Claudius Regn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not
work":
CG>> No. They obviously assumed that most people are using the
CG>> international version of PGP...
> Mmmh. So since I removed any batpgp*.dll besides batpgp65.ll (I'm
> usi
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Friday, October 15, 1999, 2:04:21 AM, Christian wrote:
> Hi!
> Keith Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not work":
>>> The version number is hardcoded into the plugin (batpgp65.dll).
>> Ah...So it
Hello, fellow Bat-lovers.
On Friday, October 15, 1999, 10:34:32 AM, Claudius wrote:
Here only the > manual menu command "verify signature" works, not
*auto verify*; I > didn't quite get which one was meant in the
discussion earlier in the thread. > Maybe Keith?
Well, I don't think Auto Verify
Hi there!
On 15 Oct 99, at 21:15, \\'alter wrote
about "Re[3]: PGP Check Signature does not":
> MC> What is the origin of TB then?
What made you think it was Russia?
SY, Alex
(St.Petersburg, Russia)
--
Thought for the day:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
Friday, October 15, 1999, 12:48:24 PM, MaXxX wrote:
> 1. Polish names NEVER have a "v" (vee) in them.
> 2. Russian names are easy to read for you! If you read a Russian name,
[snippage]
> 3. Polish names NEVER end with "-kov". That's a Russian (or
[snippage]
> Hope that clears things up a little :
Hi there!
On 15 Oct 99, at 21:48, MaXxX wrote
about "Re[6]: PGP Check Signature does not":
> Wrong.
>
> I'm from Poland myself, and let me teach you one thing about Russian
> and Polish last names:
Pretty interesting an explanation:-))) Only.
> 1. Polish names NEVER have a "v" (vee) i
Friday, October 15, 1999, 2:32:49 PM, Alexander wrote:
> Uhum, my middle name is "Vyatcheslavovitch". Can anybody
> pronounce?:-)))
Well, if I were to take a stab at it, with a spoon...
V-yaht-cheh-slah-voe-vitch
That should give you a fair phonetic approximation of how I'd say it.
--
Hi there!
On 15 Oct 99, at 13:43, Steve Lamb wrote
about "Re: PGP Check Signature does not wo":
> Friday, October 15, 1999, 2:32:49 PM, Alexander wrote:
> > Uhum, my middle name is "Vyatcheslavovitch". Can anybody
> > pronounce?:-)))
>
> Well, if I were to take a stab at it, with a spo
Friday, October 15, 1999, 5:33:46 PM, tracer wrote:
>>> Friday, October 15, 1999, 2:32:49 PM, Alexander wrote:
>>> > Uhum, my middle name is "Vyatcheslavovitch". Can anybody
>>> > pronounce?:-)))
>>>
>>> Well, if I were to take a stab at it, with a spoon...
>>>
>>> V-yaht-cheh-slah-voe-vitch
Hello Claudius
> Peter Steiner, you wrote previously about the "check signature"
> feature:
> "Yes, i had the same problem, but only until i changed to PGP 6.5"
> Does "*automatically verify*" work with your v6.5? Here only the
> manual menu command "verify signature" works, not *auto verify*; I
Hi there!
On 16 Oct 99, at 2:14, Steve Lamb wrote
about "Re: PGP Check Signature does not wo":
> > English isnt the most suitable language to use to pronounce/spell
> > foreign language pronounciation
That's why here we are using "Transliteration" whenever we're
sending something in Ru
Hi there!
On 17 Oct 99, at 9:15, tracer wrote
about "Re[2]: PGP Check Signature does not":
> Alexander> (in Volapyuk): Aleksandr Va`c`eslavovic` Kiselev
> Alexander> (in proper Translit): Aleksandr Wq^eslawowi^ Kiselew
> Now I see the tonguebreaker...
> Wouldnt it be easier if you could re
Hi Oliver Sturm,
On Montag, 11. Oktober 1999 at 19:44:01 you wrote:
n>> i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but "check
n>> digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty "PGPlog"
n>> window. anyone else with the same problems?
OS> I have exactly the same problem
Hi Peter Steiner,
On Mittwoch, 13. Oktober 1999 at 20:04:31 you wrote:
PS> Hello noniq
PS> On Monday, October 11, 1999, 1:45:09 AM, noniq wrote:
n>> i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but "check
n>> digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty "PGPlog"
n>> wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Oliver,
n>>> i'm using PGP 6.0.2i and the PGP 6.0.x/6.5.x plug-in but
"check
n>>> digital signature" does not work. all i get is an empty
"PGPlog"
n>>> window. anyone else with the same problems?
[cut]
I' using PGP 6.5.1 (US, since pgp
Hi!
Claudius Regn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does not work":
> I' using PGP 6.5.1 (US, since pgpi.com announced Version i for
> October, 1st and nothing happens).
> Option "PGP->sign" writes:
> (a) "Version: PGP 6.0.
Hi Steve Lamb,
On Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 1999 at 18:50:55 you wrote:
SL> Thursday, October 14, 1999, 8:56:25 AM, Claudius wrote:
>> (a) "Version: PGP 6.0.2i" (see below)
>> (b) adds "- " above "With best..." (see below)
>> (c) destroys quoted block (see above)
>> (d) "Hash: SHA1" (see above
Hi,
CG> Probably because of the reason you gave below...
PGP has it's own uninstall routine, but it probably leaves some lines
in the reg...
>> (c) destroys quoted block (see above)
CG> You can change the default line-wrap column (70) in the PGP options.
Yeah, thanks, I just figured that out.
Hello Christian,
Friday, Friday, October 15, 1999, you wrote:
Christian Gassmann> Hi!
Christian Gassmann> Keith Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> about "PGP Check Signature does
not work":
>> Fascinating. I'm also using 6.5.1. I just tested it, and mine is
>&
Hi TBUsers,
>>> The version number is hardcoded into the plugin (batpgp65.dll).
>> Ah...So it's just a typo?
CG> No. They obviously assumed that most people are using the
CG> international version of PGP...
Mmmh. So since I removed any batpgp*.dll besides batpgp65.ll (I'm using
PGP6.5.1) why doe
Hi TBUsers,
CG> Look into the registry at the following key:
CG> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Network Associates\PGP
CG> I've found "Version"="freeware, version 6.5.1" here - and there isn't
CG> any other reference to a PGP version in "my" registry.
There is one more reference, but as you say the
Hello Keith,
Friday, October 15, 1999, 10:22:43 AM, you wrote:
> I'm curious...Does anyone happen to know the demographics of the TB
> population?
I'm a USA user, I just found TB and find it an excellent e-mail
client. I assumed it was developed outside the US, but I've been
unable to lo
Hello Morgan,
Friday, October 15, 1999, 8:44:52 PM, you wrote:
MC> Hello Keith,
MC> Friday, October 15, 1999, 10:22:43 AM, you wrote:
>> I'm curious...Does anyone happen to know the demographics of the TB
>> population?
MC> I'm a USA user, I just found TB and find it an excellent e-mail
MC>
At Friday, October 15, 1999, 9:15:12 PM, \\'alter has typed a mail:
\\'> Russia or Poland?
Whatever made you think it was Poland
--
Po co mi musk jak mam dres?
|\ /| /\ \~~~/ \~~~/ \~~~/ WWW: http://maxxx.ii.com.pl
| \/ | / \ > < > < > < E-M: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
Hello MaXxX,
Friday, October 15, 1999, 9:20:08 PM, you wrote:
M> At Friday, October 15, 1999, 9:15:12 PM, \\'alter has typed a mail:
\\'>> Russia or Poland?
M> Whatever made you think it was Poland
The last names of the developers and the many responces coming from
Poland.
--
Best r
At Friday, October 15, 1999, 9:32:15 PM, \\'alter has typed the gibberish below:
\\'>>> Russia or Poland?
M>> Whatever made you think it was Poland
a> The last names of the developers and the many responces coming from
a> Poland.
Wrong.
I'm from Poland myself, and let me teach you one th
Hello Steve,
Friday, October 15, 1999, 3:30:25 PM, you wrote:
SL> So, what you're saying is that the creator of Babylon 5,
SL> J. Michael Straczynski, is most likely of some Polish decent...
SL> right? :)
Actually he's of Byelorussian descent...
Best regards,
Boris
Saturday, October 16, 1999
Hello Alexander,
Saturday, Saturday, October 16, 1999, you wrote:
Alexander V. Kiselev> Hi there!
Alexander V. Kiselev> On 15 Oct 99, at 13:43, Steve Lamb wrote
Alexander V. Kiselev> about "Re: PGP Check Signature does not wo":
>> Friday, October 15, 1999, 2:32
On 16 October 1999 at 01:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:
t> I answer this mesg and Alexander's full name as he types it stays
t> blue in my msg, like I just typed it myself. It seems to happen with
t> long names especially.
TB looks for the chevron '>' in the first 20 characters when decidi
Saturday, October 16, 1999
Hello Marck,
Saturday, Saturday, October 16, 1999, you wrote:
Marck> On 16 October 1999 at 01:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:
t>> I answer this mesg and Alexander's full name as he types it stays
t>> blue in my msg, like I just typed it myself. It seems to happe
On 16 October 1999 at 11:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:
Marck>> Don't use the "Full name" option in Preferences -> Templates ->
Marck>> Reply -> Sender information used for quotation. It's actually
Marck>> pretty poor netiquette bandwidth-wise.
t> ok, changed. Thanks!
Much better :-)
Hello Peter,
PS> I never tried automatically verify. What i meant was the verification
PS> of signed & encrypted messages during decryption.
PS> Does automatically decrypt work with you?
Nope. Seems to be an _official_ bug then - or just a not supported
feature.
--
With best regards,
Claudius
Sunday, October 17, 1999
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, Sunday, October 17, 1999, you wrote:
Alexander> Hi there!
Alexander> On 16 Oct 99, at 2:14, Steve Lamb wrote
Alexander> about "Re: PGP Check Signature does not wo":
>> > English isnt the most suitable language to use to pronounce/spell
>>
Hallo tracer,
On Sunday, October 17, 1999, 10:15:12 AM, tracer wrote:
Alexander>> Don't know Esperanto, but think you're wrong here:-) the first
Alexander>> "a" above should sound similar to German "Ja" (that is, as it's
Alexander>> common in many Latin-based languages, should be written as
A
Monday, October 18, 1999
Hello Thomas,
Sunday, Sunday, October 17, 1999, you wrote:
Thomas> Hallo tracer,
Thomas> On Sunday, October 17, 1999, 10:15:12 AM, tracer wrote:
Alexander>>> Don't know Esperanto, but think you're wrong here:-) the first
Alexander>>> "a" above should sound similar to
Monday, October 18, 1999
Hello Alexander,
Sunday, Sunday, October 17, 1999, you wrote:
Alexander> Hi there!
Alexander> On 17 Oct 99, at 9:15, tracer wrote
Alexander> about "Re[2]: PGP Check Signature does not":
>> Alexander> (in Volapyuk): Aleksandr Va`c`eslavovic` Kiselev
>> Alexander>
Hi there!
On 15 Oct 99, at 12:44, Morgan Collins wrote
about "Re[2]: PGP Check Signature does not work":
> > I'm curious...Does anyone happen to know the demographics of the TB
> > population?
>
> I'm a USA user, I just found TB and find it an exce
Saturday, October 16, 1999, 10:21:13 AM, Alexander wrote:
> either Esperanto is not so fonetic you think it is or you haven't
> got the proper pronunciation:-))
The latter. Esperanto has 28 letters and 28 base sounds. 1 sound per letter,
obviously. It also has several other sounds which ar
Hi there!
On 16 Oct 99, at 12:14, Steve Lamb wrote
about "OT: Laguanges and names, really, ho":
> The latter. Esperanto has 28 letters and 28 base sounds. 1 sound per letter,
> obviously. It also has several other sounds which are made when a small
> selection of letters are combined,
Hi there!
On 17 Oct 99, at 19:35, Thomas Fernandez wrote
about "Re[2]: OT: Laguanges and names, rea":
> I really don't know why everybody thinks all langauges of the world
> should be squeezed into the English alphabet. Look at Vietnamese: it
> looks awful now! And really, even though they u
Sunday, October 17, 1999, 4:35:20 AM, Thomas wrote:
> I really don't know why everybody thinks all langauges of the world
> should be squeezed into the English alphabet.
I don't think it should. Although I'll take how many Esperantists write
Esperanto. As I said, it has 28 characters. It d
Hallo Alexander,
On Sunday, October 17, 1999, 6:34:34 AM, Alexander V. Kiselev wrote:
>> The latter. Esperanto has 28 letters and 28 base sounds. 1 sound per letter,
>> obviously. It also has several other sounds which are made when a small
>> selection of letters are combined, but nothin
TF> I really don't know why everybody thinks all langauges of the world
TF> should be squeezed into the English alphabet. Look at Vietnamese: it
TF> looks awful now!
Eh guy, what the h... you know about Vietnamese
What did you mean "awful" with our current character set?
TF> And really, e
Hi Steve,
on Monday, October 18, 1999, 11:22:40 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> I really don't know why everybody thinks all langauges of the world
>> should be squeezed into the English alphabet.
SL> I don't think it should. Although I'll take how many Esperantists write
SL> Esperanto. As I sai
Hi NGUYEN,
on Sunday, October 17, 1999, 10:16:41 PM, NGUYEN Hoai Nam wrote:
TF>> I really don't know why everybody thinks all langauges of the world
TF>> should be squeezed into the English alphabet. Look at Vietnamese: it
TF>> looks awful now!
NHN> Eh guy, what the h... you know about Vietnam
53 matches
Mail list logo
