Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
on Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:53:02PM +0100, Joerg Johannes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. | | OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, | and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. Upgrade them to PGP/MIME. This configuration is for maildrop, translation to procmail (if desired) is an exercise for the reader : snipped maildrop config Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. Typical broken GNOME thinking that modular software design is a Bad Thing. One of many places where GNOME is wrong. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of Gestalt don't you understand? Windows Refund Day II: fight for your right to refund http://www.windowsrefund.net/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 08:33:03PM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | Am Sa, den 27.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 16:56: | Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having | to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. | | Well, obviously that claim isn't true if it can't handle PGP/MIME properly. | | OK, you're right. So s/good thing/idea/ should be applied to what I | said above ;) Yeah, the good thing about using maildrop, etc., is the ability to fit additional filtering and whatnot in the path of the message. With an all-in-one deal like evolution, you'll have to start writing C code and compiling your own version of the app in order to add the ability to better handle non-MIME PGP messages. As one of my profs likes to say pay your money take your choice. (BTW, note that you could use fetchmail and maildrop along with evolution, if you want to) -D -- Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid. Proverbs 12:1 www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 02:32:30PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
| At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the
| proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't
| make them think.)
|
| The only solution I know of is to configure your client to use
| recipient-specific signing methods, which is what I've done with Gnus.
| Email groups are signed by PGP/MIME, Usenet groups get signed inline, and
| certain users get inline or no signatures, depending on how I've set them
| up.
|
| Anybody know how Outlook 2003 handles PGP/MIME signatures?
It works. One of my roommates uses it now, and he can read my
messages without excessive hassle. In addition, it has a menu for PGP
stuff. I don't know how complete it is or if it automatically
verifies or anything, but at least it displays the text of the
message. (before this past summer/fall he was using OE and
experienced the infamous invisible-message bug)
-D
--
\begin{humor}
Disclaimer:
If I receive a message from you, you are agreeing that:
1. I am by definition, the intended recipient
2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends
itself to. In particular, I may quote it on USENET or the WWW.
3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
be included on your message
\end{humor}
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:55, Kirk Strauser wrote: At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions to you included the per-group configuration method. As for the per-user changes: it seems that I abandoned that setup a long time ago and had forgotten about it. There are so relatively few people in my address book that can't receive PGP mails that I gave each of them their own group, and set the group parameters to not sign mail. Would you be so kind as to point me to a resource for using Gnus/emacs to send and receive mail? My mail resides on a third-party IMAP server (fastmail.fm) and I'd like to start using Gnus emacs more. Some of the info I've found, like on the emacs wiki, is a little 'over-the-top'. Thanks Kirk. -- Cheers, Trey --- men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth --more than ruin --more even than death. thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. - bertrand russell 21:17:36 up 3 days, 3:33, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.08, 0.08 Linux salamander 2.6.4 #1 SMP Wed Mar 10 23:59:57 PST 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-04-01T02:19:44Z, Trey Sizemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would you be so kind as to point me to a resource for using Gnus/emacs to send and receive mail? Check out http://my.gnus.org/ - it's chock full of tutorials and walkthroughs. Best of luck to you! -- Kirk Strauser pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 21:38, Kirk Strauser wrote: Check out http://my.gnus.org/ - it's chock full of tutorials and walkthroughs. Best of luck to you! I'll give it a try, thanks! -- Cheers, Trey --- Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. -- GK Chesterton 22:54:44 up 3 days, 5:10, 1 user, load average: 0.31, 0.29, 0.22 Linux salamander 2.6.4 #1 SMP Wed Mar 10 23:59:57 PST 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Trey Sizemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 09:55, Kirk Strauser wrote: At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions to you included the per-group configuration method. As for the per-user changes: it seems that I abandoned that setup a long time ago and had forgotten about it. There are so relatively few people in my address book that can't receive PGP mails that I gave each of them their own group, and set the group parameters to not sign mail. Would you be so kind as to point me to a resource for using Gnus/emacs to send and receive mail? Have you checked http://my.gnus.org/ yet? That's a pretty good resource. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator and the trivially simple to configure exim and you have arranged for your mail to be sent and received automatically regardless of what MUA you use. Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. Don't know about pppd's demand, but all that stuff was configurable with diald. -- Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble. --Bucky Katt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Paul Johnson writes: Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. -- John Hasler You may treat this work as if it [EMAIL PROTECTED] were in the public domain. Dancing Horse HillI waive all rights. Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:28:30PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote: Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) It has to be said that OE is dialup-friendly. It only takes one click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and hang up again, all automatically, thus reducing time spent online, and the associated costs, to the absolute minimum. Last time I looked, there was no equivalent in kmail. Of course it would be possible to knock up a script to do it, but there seems to be nothing built-in. It does seem to be the case that Linux tends to assume you have an unmetered, always-on connection, whereas Windoze generally assumes you have a dialup. diald. People still use that, right? http://diald.sourceforge.net/ It's in Debian, too... but I wouldn't consider it the answer. It's OK for starting the connection, but connections that close on idle are an absolute pain... if you rely on that to disconnect, they always stay open longer than needed; the other thing they do is time out while you're reading a web page, so next time you click on a link you have to wait ages while the thing dials up again. I can cope :-), by connecting/disconnecting manually. But for the Windoze convertee, the requirement is for a clone of OE's Send/Receive button. -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul Johnson writes: Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. True. But if you're on dialup, you're a little foolish to do that. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Paul Johnson writes: Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. I wrote: Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. Paul Johnson writes: True. But if you're on dialup, you're a little foolish to do that. I'm one a dialup and it's exactly what I do. However, I took your statement to be a criticism. Was it? Paul Johnson writes: True. But if you're on dialup, you're a little foolish to do that. -- John Hasler You may treat this work as if it [EMAIL PROTECTED] were in the public domain. Dancing Horse HillI waive all rights. Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul Johnson writes: Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. I wrote: Unless you configure it to send mail immediately. Paul Johnson writes: True. But if you're on dialup, you're a little foolish to do that. I'm one a dialup and it's exactly what I do. However, I took your statement to be a criticism. Was it? No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 27. Mrz 2004 21:19 schrieb Brad Sims: On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote: Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? I /think/ one is for Woody and one is for Sarge, but as I play with Sid... Apt will get the one with the newest version as I understand it g Yes, the line with testing is for testing. Little Question on gpg-agent. The docs at http://kmail.kde.org/kmail-pgpmime-howto.html#kmail say, that gpg-agent can create a shelscript. But this don't work for me. I do: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ gpg-agent --sh gpg-agent[1060]: Bitte die Option `--daemon' nutzen um das Programm im Hintergund auszufhren [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ don't work, And I do: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ gpg-agent --daemon --options ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf - --sh GPG_AGENT_INFO=/tmp/gpg-mfh4S5/S.gpg-agent:1008:1; export GPG_AGENT_INFO; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ and the agent is startet, but I don't get any Script. How can I let gpg-agent start at boot? - -- MfG usw. Werner Mahr registered Linuxuser: 295882 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZyW+1jkT71DQrmARApSFAJ0XTIsACp8M4GjvepViZt8QHpVIeQCfbfVB ou+7aEwF80uz5U9c0yiQDpI= =Afpg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul Johnson writes: No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. What is personal about asking if your statement was meant as a criticism of PPP? No, no. I thought you meant I was criticizing you. No, PPP isn't a bad protocol (even though it's used for bad things like PPPoE). Just saying having exim try to send immediately instead of holding onto mail when you're offline and letting pppd kick sendq when you connect seems a little silly. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can cope :-), by connecting/disconnecting manually. But for the Windoze convertee, the requirement is for a clone of OE's Send/Receive button. But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. If you want to emulate the feature where it randomly forgets the user's login and passwd, five lines. -- Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble. --Bucky Katt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Richard Hoskins writes: But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. What does the Send/Receive button do that gpppon doesn't? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler wrote: Paul Johnson writes: No, however, you really are a fool if you take the net too personally. What is personal about asking if your statement was meant as a criticism of PPP? I don't think Paul meant it that way. If you are on dial-up, it can be a lot more economic to save your mails and have things configured so that they are sent next time you go on line. If you have things configured to be sent immediately, your mail client could be dialing everytime you send a mail, and if you are an active participant on a list like this, your phone bill could send you to the poor house. Regards, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
David writes: If you have things configured to be sent immediately, your mail client could be dialing everytime you send a mail, and if you are an active participant on a list like this, your phone bill could send you to the poor house. Not when local calls are unmetered, as the are in most of the US. -- John Hasler You may treat this work as if it [EMAIL PROTECTED] were in the public domain. Dancing Horse HillI waive all rights. Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 28 March 2004 12:21 pm, Werner Mahr wrote:
Am Samstag, 27. Mrz 2004 21:19 schrieb Brad Sims:
On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote:
Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge?
I /think/ one is for Woody and one is for Sarge, but as I play with
Sid... Apt will get the one with the newest version as I understand
it g
Yes, the line with testing is for testing. Little Question on
gpg-agent. The docs at
http://kmail.kde.org/kmail-pgpmime-howto.html#kmail say, that
gpg-agent can create a shelscript. But this don't work for me. I do:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ gpg-agent --sh
gpg-agent[1060]: Bitte die Option `--daemon' nutzen um das Programm
im Hintergund auszufhren
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$
don't work, And I do:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$ gpg-agent --daemon --options
~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf --sh
GPG_AGENT_INFO=/tmp/gpg-mfh4S5/S.gpg-agent:1008:1; export
GPG_AGENT_INFO; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src$
and the agent is startet, but I don't get any Script. How can I let
gpg-agent start at boot?
The stuff it's spitting out to stdout has to be sourced by your shell. So you can, for
instance, run the command in backticks, or output it to a file then source it.
On my machines, I use the following script as /etc/X11/Xsession.d/95gpg-agent-start
GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE=${HOME}/.gpg-agent-info
GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_DIR=${HOME}/.gnupg
GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_FILE=${GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_DIR}/gpg-agent.conf
if [ -x /usr/bin/gpg-agent ]; then
if [ -e ${GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE} ]; then
OLD_GPG_AGENT=`cat ${GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE}`
CHECK_PID=`echo ${OLD_GPG_AGENT}|cut -d : -f 2`
PROG=`ps u ${CHECK_PID} | tail -1 | sed -re 's/^([^ ]+) +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +[^
]+ +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +[^ ]+ +([^ ]+).*$/\1 \2/'`
if [ x${PROG}x != x${USER} gpg-agentx ]; then
rm -f $GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE
else
export GPG_AGENT_INFO=${OLD_GPG_AGENT}
fi
fi
if [ ! -e ${GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE} ]; then
if [ ! -e $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_DIR ]; then
mkdir -p $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_DIR
chmod 700 $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_DIR
fi
if [ ! -e $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_FILE ]; then
touch $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_FILE
fi
eval $(gpg-agent --daemon --options $GPG_AGENT_CONFIG_FILE)
echo $GPG_AGENT_INFO $GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE
chmod 600 $GPG_AGENT_INFO_FILE
fi
fi
A bit evil, but it works fine for me. =)
- --
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAZ16R8KmKTEzW49IRApRyAJwNPRlAKgyuQjm6Lk83OXYpHnEEagCeJGxG
mSpDrv848EGhlfxFOR/m4/s=
=tGYM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Richard Hoskins writes: But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. What does the Send/Receive button do that gpppon doesn't? I don't know what gpppon does. I can tell you one thing though, our hypothetical bash script wouldn't require GTK. The send/receive clone in discussion would log on to a dialup, kick the MTA, fetch mail with pop, log off the dialup, and launch a MUA. That is what Outlook Express does when it is behaving. -- Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble. --Bucky Katt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 03:51:12PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote: Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can cope :-), by connecting/disconnecting manually. But for the Windoze convertee, the requirement is for a clone of OE's Send/Receive button. But you're setting up the machine, right? A send/receive clone is a four line bash script started by clicking a purty icon on the desktop. This case it would be; the general case, not so. I was changing focus from my godfather in particular to Joe Random Windoze Convertee, and making a point about how JRWC would perceive his kmail setup to be inferior in usability to KDE. Sorry if I wasn't making myself clear. If you want to emulate the feature where it randomly forgets the user's login and passwd, five lines. LOL, love it :-) -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To make sure this doesn't happen, a lot of old groups cover their ass with the draconian social custom of no binaries of any type, ever. As a result, the only PGP signatures I've ever seen in Usenet have been inline ones. That, and not enough NNTP clients are GNKSA compliant, or for that matter, even properly MIME-compliant. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZTT6UzgNqloQMwcRAsrTAKCvfOCiNFlQN+IDWdS4lyAoS6gw9QCcDPdr E/FeN1+T9xl7MFXxn9cHPhM= =FFrj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't make them think.) The only solution I know of is to configure your client to use recipient-specific signing methods, which is what I've done with Gnus. Email groups are signed by PGP/MIME, Usenet groups get signed inline, and certain users get inline or no signatures, depending on how I've set them up. For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZTVzUzgNqloQMwcRAu/zAKC8lApMOiDCQ8Y9QmXFlGGu6STuUQCfbD4Q UDsNOnL+dPQzUbC3p0Rx6LA= =pUt8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/gpg-signed-mail.html Very good comments. I like Karsten's style. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are unsafe, and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him read the text of the message. Why do I see a Linux candidate? KDE is way more than up to the task for casual Windows users. And today I received a bounce from someone's misconfigured Windoze system that they'd apparently been receiving debian-user mail on; Norton Antivirus had rejected one of my posts to the list because it had an unsafe attachment, ie. the PGP signature. Didn't Symantec even market an OpenPGP product for a while? -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rumor is that there's a plugin for Outlook Express that enables it to handle PGP-signed email correctly. I don't know whether this is true, and if so how well it works; but Googling might help. You got me curious so I googled. Lo-and-behold, not only does it exist, but it's Free. http://openpgp.vie-privee.org/courrier_en.html I've bookmarked it and will now use it as a cluebat on WinMorons(tm). Imake them work to read my email in its separate attachment containing my text, hoping that it might annoy them into dropping IE and/or complaining to MS. Does it work? -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. | | OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, | and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. Upgrade them to PGP/MIME. This configuration is for maildrop, translation to procmail (if desired) is an exercise for the reader : snipped maildrop config Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. joerg -- Gib GATES keine Chance! signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am Samstag, 27. Mrz 2004 02:36 schrieb Brad Sims: ## OpenGPG plugins ## deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian binary/ deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian testing/ Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? - -- MfG usw. Werner Mahr registered Linuxuser: 295882 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZW4/1jkT71DQrmARArioAJ4ifUv2I1R6OhgUJeXUkJ86vqKbEwCdEAED spblhd4One+OFXKB8/pi9w8= =fww4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:26:10AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are unsafe, and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him read the text of the message. Why do I see a Linux candidate? KDE is way more than up to the task for casual Windows users. Two problems seem to be relevant: 1) It has to be said that OE is dialup-friendly. It only takes one click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and hang up again, all automatically, thus reducing time spent online, and the associated costs, to the absolute minimum. Last time I looked, there was no equivalent in kmail. Of course it would be possible to knock up a script to do it, but there seems to be nothing built-in. It does seem to be the case that Linux tends to assume you have an unmetered, always-on connection, whereas Windoze generally assumes you have a dialup. 2) (probably the greater) Getting People To Try Something New, especially when they aren't really interested in computers per se. People tend to be happier to live with / work around / ignore the deficiencies of windoze than to go to all the trouble of learning a new system. My godfather used to work in IBM sales, but it was just a job rather than something he did out of interest, and he's not particularly into what goes on under the hood. Indeed, it's probably less than a year since he moved up from his 486... I could try giving him a Knoppix CD, but I somehow doubt he'd do anything with it. And today I received a bounce from someone's misconfigured Windoze system that they'd apparently been receiving debian-user mail on; Norton Antivirus had rejected one of my posts to the list because it had an unsafe attachment, ie. the PGP signature. Didn't Symantec even market an OpenPGP product for a while? That vaguely rings a bell, but I couldn't say for sure. -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-27T08:04:03Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For the benefit of the archives (and me), could you post some examples? Actually, my original Gnus setup instructions to you included the per-group configuration method. As for the per-user changes: it seems that I abandoned that setup a long time ago and had forgotten about it. There are so relatively few people in my address book that can't receive PGP mails that I gave each of them their own group, and set the group parameters to not sign mail. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Derrick 'dman' Hudson um 15:46: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote: | Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. | | OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, | and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. Upgrade them to PGP/MIME. This configuration is for maildrop, translation to procmail (if desired) is an exercise for the reader : snipped maildrop config Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. Well, obviously that claim isn't true if it can't handle PGP/MIME properly. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Incoming from Pigeon: On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:26:10AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are unsafe, and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him read the text of the message. Why do I see a Linux candidate? KDE is way more than up to the task for casual Windows users. Two problems seem to be relevant: 1) It has to be said that OE is dialup-friendly. It only takes one click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and hang The best way to do that is with Gkrellm. One click gets him online, then pops his mail. Another click fires up MUA. Another click disconnects. He gets status graphs showing him progress indicators for CPU, Proc, disk activity, and network connection. You only need to tell Gkrellm what to run for the various button clicks (pon, poff). Configuration is via GUI. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Am Sa, den 27.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 16:56: Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks, Derrick. But the good thing about using evolution is, NOT having to use maildrop/procmail/fetchmail and all that stuff. Well, obviously that claim isn't true if it can't handle PGP/MIME properly. OK, you're right. So s/good thing/idea/ should be applied to what I said above ;) joerg -- Gib GATES keine Chance! signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
On Saturday 27 March 2004 6:06 am, Werner Mahr wrote: Do I need both lines, or is one for Woody and one for Sarge? I /think/ one is for Woody and one is for Sarge, but as I play with Sid... Apt will get the one with the newest version as I understand it g -- If Washington fears honest citizens armed at their own expense and desire, then Washington should. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) It has to be said that OE is dialup-friendly. It only takes one click to dial up, send outgoing mail, receive incoming mail, and hang up again, all automatically, thus reducing time spent online, and the associated costs, to the absolute minimum. Last time I looked, there was no equivalent in kmail. Of course it would be possible to knock up a script to do it, but there seems to be nothing built-in. It does seem to be the case that Linux tends to assume you have an unmetered, always-on connection, whereas Windoze generally assumes you have a dialup. diald. People still use that, right? http://diald.sourceforge.net/ -- Lift me down, so I can make the Earth tremble. --Bucky Katt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Richard Hoskins writes: diald. People still use that, right? No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator and the trivially simple to configure exim and you have arranged for your mail to be sent and received automatically regardless of what MUA you use. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:11:42 -0800 Bill Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition many of the people I correspond with use M$ Outlook which not only doesn't understand PGP-MIME but hides the body of the message when PGP-MIME attachments are present. Huh. That's odd. It's the canonical wisdom these days -- borne out by my experience with several correspondants who use Outlook -- that Outlook handles PGP signature attachments just fine. *Outlook Express*, OTOH, is broken in just the fashion you describe -- it looks like a blank message, with the actual text portion of the message appearing as the first attachment, and the PGP signature as the second attachment, to them. One interesting thing I have noticed with OE is that it correctly displays the message if there is an additional attachment as well as the signature. Good thing too, since mutt wont let you use an inline signature automatically if there is an attachment. I just end up setting inline sigs as default then enter exceptions for mailing lists and people I know who can deal with the pgp/mime stuff. dc -- David Purton [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. 2 Chronicles 16:9a signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Richard Hoskins writes: diald. People still use that, right? No. They use pppd's 'demand' option, which is easily enabled via pppconfig. Add fetchmail with its simple graphical configurator and the trivially simple to configure exim and you have arranged for your mail to be sent and received automatically regardless of what MUA you use. Yeah, and it waits until you need to do other network activity to do so, just spools the mail and moves on with it's day until the PPP daemon kicks exim to send the spool and fetchmail to grab fresh mail. -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 04:52: Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Do, den 25.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 03:03: For any signature, it's generally considered polite to put in a -- (that is, dash dash space newline) on a line by itself. See my signature for an example. See also: http://www.newbie.org/ - -- Errh, your sig starts with - -- \n. Bad example. Go fix it. joerg Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. When the signature is attached, I see a lock symbol at the bottom of the mail, and when clicking on that lock the signature is checked (if the key is available). This does not work with inline signed messages: I see only the -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- ... -END PGP SIGNATURE- signature, but I don't know how to check the validity of such a signature. Is this brokenness of evolution? Or am I missing something fundamental? joerg -- Gib GATES keine Chance! signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 03:59, Joerg Johannes wrote:
Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 04:52:
Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Do, den 25.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 03:03:
For any signature, it's generally considered polite to put in a --
(that is, dash dash space newline) on a line by itself. See my signature
for an example.
See also: http://www.newbie.org/
- --
Errh, your sig starts with - -- \n. Bad example. Go fix it.
joerg
Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid.
OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua,
and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. When
the signature is attached, I see a lock symbol at the bottom of the
mail, and when clicking on that lock the signature is checked (if the
key is available). This does not work with inline signed messages: I see
only the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
...
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
signature, but I don't know how to check the validity of such a
signature.
Is this brokenness of evolution? Or am I missing something fundamental?
joerg
What you're seeing is the ASCII armored ('armoured' in the rest of the
English speaking world outside of the US :) PGP signature. I don't know
if there's a way to 'teach' evolution about them, but if there is I've
never found it. If you want to check the validity of a signature that
has been encoded inline like that, you should save the message to disk
and then manually run 'gpg --verify testmessage.txt'.
It's not a solution you're going to want to use on a daily basis, but if
you want to encrypt your mail to someone who prefers it (such as myself,
see sig) you should obviously make sure that you can get a valid
signature from them first before email them off-list with an encrypted
email. Once you've verified that the signature is valid (or at least as
valid as its going to get without having to go to a key signing party),
then you can RELATIVELY safely assume that the key is REASONABLY valid.
(Of course, when dealing with public key systems, unless you personally
got that key from a TRUSTED individual on some form of non-modifiable
media and have had them verify it, you can't be all THAT sure, but for
day to day communications you can be sure enough.)
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
Hello Joerg Johannes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Am Fr, den 26.03.2004 schrieb Paul Johnson um 04:52: Joerg Johannes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Errh, your sig starts with - -- \n. Bad example. Go fix it. Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid. OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua, and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures. When the signature is attached, I see a lock symbol at the bottom of the mail, and when clicking on that lock the signature is checked (if the key is available). This does not work with inline signed messages: I see only the -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- ... -END PGP SIGNATURE- signature, but I don't know how to check the validity of such a signature. Is this brokenness of evolution? Or am I missing something fundamental? As far as I know evolution does not support the old (and very common) inline PGP/GPG signatures. Instead it only supports attatched GPG/PGP signatures (PGP/MIME). The problem is that many other MUAs only support inline signatures, but not PGP/MIME, and some need additional software to support PGP/MIME (like aegypten for kmail). Check ix 03/2004 for an overview on PGP support in common MUAs. best regards Andreas Janssen -- Andreas Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 Registered Linux User #267976 http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Joerg Johannes wrote:
| Not when using inline PGP signatures, then it's considered valid.
|
| OK, sorry for that. But now to something else: I use evolution as mua,
| and I don't quite understand what to do with inline PGP signatures.
Upgrade them to PGP/MIME.
This configuration is for maildrop, translation to procmail (if
desired) is an exercise for the reader :
## -
# Fix the old-school PGP signatures
if ( ${Content-Type:} =~ /text\/plain/ !(${Content-Type:} =~ /multipart/)
!(${Content-Type:} =~ /application\/pgp/) )
{
if ( /^-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-/:bD \
/^-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-/:bD \
/^-END PGP SIGNATURE-/:bD \
)
{
xfilter reformail -i \Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
x-action=sign\
}
if ( /^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-/:bD /^-END PGP MESSAGE-/:bD )
{
xfilter reformail -i \Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text;
x-action=encrypt\
}
}
--
There are 10 types of people in the world:
those who understand binary, and those who do not.
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Andreas Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as I know evolution does not support the old (and very common) inline PGP/GPG signatures. Instead it only supports attatched GPG/PGP signatures (PGP/MIME). Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. The problem is that many other MUAs only support inline signatures, but not PGP/MIME, and some need additional software to support PGP/MIME (like aegypten for kmail). Check ix 03/2004 for an overview on PGP support in common MUAs. And some clients are so broken that they don't even show MIME messages correctly (OE...) -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-26T16:52:55Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. The only reason I ever use inline signatures is that members of some newsgroups absolutely have a conniption when they see attachments. See this thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to understand that a PGP signature is not a virus: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8threadm=7PkY9.22855%24VU6.19844%40rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.netrnum=1prev=/frame=on -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See this thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to understand that a PGP signature is not a virus: Please tell me that the people involved are in alt.sci.physics, and not sci.physics. If the latter . . .man, that place has gone unbelievably downhill since the mid-90's. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Friday 26 March 2004 12:40 pm, Chris Metzler wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See this thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to understand that a PGP signature is not a virus: Please tell me that the people involved are in alt.sci.physics, and not sci.physics. If the latter . . .man, that place has gone unbelievably downhill since the mid-90's. Heh, heh. I read that thread Kirk was posting in. Not only was that in sci.physics, but it seemed like nobody wanted to believe Kirk that alt.sci.physics even existed. =) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-26T19:40:04Z, Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please tell me that the people involved are in alt.sci.physics, and not sci.physics. Sorry. :-/ If the latter . . .man, that place has gone unbelievably downhill since the mid-90's. Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to ask about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a royal butt-chewing in return. Since apparently I'm no longer welcome in that group, I no longer have anyone to pester regarding physics questions. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-26T19:47:01Z, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not only was that in sci.physics, but it seemed like nobody wanted to believe Kirk that alt.sci.physics even existed. =) Hah! I'd forgotten about that. Choice quote: I really don't think there is any such group as alt.sci.physics. as if I just invented a likely-sounding group name and started using it. :) -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Friday 26 March 2004 12:49 pm, Kirk Strauser wrote: At 2004-03-26T19:40:04Z, Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to ask about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a royal butt-chewing in return. Since apparently I'm no longer welcome in that group, I no longer have anyone to pester regarding physics questions. I haven't checked the list of lists lately, but I'm pretty sure there is a debian-physics. ;) -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:49:10 -0600 Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the latter . . .man, that place has gone unbelievably downhill since the mid-90's. Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to ask about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a royal butt-chewing in return. Since apparently I'm no longer welcome in that group, I no longer have anyone to pester regarding physics questions. Well, there used to be a lot of people there who made their living in academia doing physics at major research institutions. Maybe they got sick of it and left (like I did). But if any of them are still there, they wouldn't be frightened by PGP signatures. So you might give it another try, and ignore the bellyachers; if they're that clueless about computers, they're probably pretty clueless about physics. That said, it *is* true that people in newsgroups outside the alt.binaries.* hierarchy have historically been pretty antagonistic towards binary/mime-encoded attachments. The no binary attachments outside of alt.binaries dogma has been around for forever, and is intended primarily to avoid the wrath of news administrators. Because binaries (jpgs, MP3s, ISOs, etc.) make up such an enormous fraction of Usenet traffic, the alt.binaries.* hierarchy exists to create a ghetto where all that stuff should go. Admins who do not wish to commit server space to keeping that stuff can then choose to simply not carry/propagate anything in alt.binaries, and they don't have to deal with it anymore. Unfortunately, users cut off from alt.binaries this way have a habit of trying to use other groups to pass binaries to friends. So, many news admins as a result have scripts that hunt for stealth binaries newsgroups; upon finding a newsgroup with more than a certain percentage of its posts containing binaries, or more than a certain fraction of its byte traffic in binary attachments, the group gets dropped, and the users of that server and those downstream don't see the group anymore. To make sure this doesn't happen, a lot of old groups cover their ass with the draconian social custom of no binaries of any type, ever. As a result, the only PGP signatures I've ever seen in Usenet have been inline ones. In reason, this is a completely different objection from the one your correspondants raised. But in practice, it has the same result -- binary attachments on Usenet outside of alt.binaries are discouraged. Anyway. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:17:14 -0600 Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2004-03-26T16:52:55Z, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. The only reason I ever use inline signatures is that members of some newsgroups absolutely have a conniption when they see attachments. See this thread where otherwise presumably intelligent people fail to understand that a PGP signature is not a virus: I always use inline signatures for the same reason, many mailing lists and newsgroups frown on attachments of any kind. In addition many of the people I correspond with use M$ Outlook which not only doesn't understand PGP-MIME but hides the body of the message when PGP-MIME attachments are present. So my dilemma is that I want my messages PGP signed, but PGP-MIME prevents me from communicating with my business partners. So far, inline signatures are the only solution. Has anyone found a decent work around to this Outlook problem? (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't make them think.) - -BillT -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZI5+uLPldPuWZnARAo8JAJ45rnyZZJjisMXNEctIhQFm0xzscQCeLbfQ 8szXBErnV27B0X+//1O+nL0= =eJzF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Andreas Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as I know evolution does not support the old (and very common) inline PGP/GPG signatures. Instead it only supports attatched GPG/PGP signatures (PGP/MIME). Inline PGP is fading from popularity, broken clients be damned. The problem is that many other MUAs only support inline signatures, but not PGP/MIME, and some need additional software to support PGP/MIME (like aegypten for kmail). Check ix 03/2004 for an overview on PGP support in common MUAs. And some clients are so broken that they don't even show MIME messages correctly (OE...) It's worse than that (he's dead, Jim)... My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are unsafe, and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him read the text of the message. And today I received a bounce from someone's misconfigured Windoze system that they'd apparently been receiving debian-user mail on; Norton Antivirus had rejected one of my posts to the list because it had an unsafe attachment, ie. the PGP signature. I can't help wondering if this is some kind of conspiracy to deter people from using encryption-based systems... -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-26T20:11:42Z, Bill Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (and don't tell me to get them to switch off of Outlook. like the proverbial blond, you can lead a die-hard M$ user to water, but you can't make them think.) The only solution I know of is to configure your client to use recipient-specific signing methods, which is what I've done with Gnus. Email groups are signed by PGP/MIME, Usenet groups get signed inline, and certain users get inline or no signatures, depending on how I've set them up. Anybody know how Outlook 2003 handles PGP/MIME signatures? -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:42:20 + Pigeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:52:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Andreas Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip And some clients are so broken that they don't even show MIME messages correctly (OE...) It's worse than that (he's dead, Jim)... My godfather's OE claims that messages with attached signatures are unsafe, and blocks access to them entirely. It won't even let him read the text of the message. And today I received a bounce from someone's misconfigured Windoze system that they'd apparently been receiving debian-user mail on; Norton Antivirus had rejected one of my posts to the list because it had an unsafe attachment, ie. the PGP signature. I can't help wondering if this is some kind of conspiracy to deter people from using encryption-based systems... It's actually a mechanism to force people to use M$ approved S/MIME with 3rd party certificates. You can't let the end-user have control of their own encryption after all, how would you get them to pay the annual licence fees ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZJMMuLPldPuWZnARAqVxAJwLhZOyfQfdlV7ETxc41kXD6XC+QgCfejd8 sQz2NGyg3v9Jb9P0NzIgvs4= =ZXn9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures
At 2004-03-26T20:07:59Z, Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The no binary attachments outside of alt.binaries dogma has been around for forever, and is intended primarily to avoid the wrath of news administrators. I'd never considered that, but it makes sense. I filter my feed by group name and message size, not the presence of attachments, and didn't realize that some people did. Still, every newsgroup charter I've found that mentions attachments at all makes an explicit exception for PGP signatures. It was my understanding that those were universally accepted. At least, that's what I thought until I posted to sci.physics. :) -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:11:42 -0800 Bill Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In addition many of the people I correspond with use M$ Outlook which not only doesn't understand PGP-MIME but hides the body of the message when PGP-MIME attachments are present. Huh. That's odd. It's the canonical wisdom these days -- borne out by my experience with several correspondants who use Outlook -- that Outlook handles PGP signature attachments just fine. *Outlook Express*, OTOH, is broken in just the fashion you describe -- it looks like a blank message, with the actual text portion of the message appearing as the first attachment, and the PGP signature as the second attachment, to them. So my dilemma is that I want my messages PGP signed, but PGP-MIME prevents me from communicating with my business partners. So far, inline signatures are the only solution. Has anyone found a decent work around to this Outlook problem? Again, Outlook should be fine. If it isn't, I'm very interested in learning what version of Outlook they're using, and why it doesn't work for them but does for my correspondants using Outlook. Rumor is that there's a plugin for Outlook Express that enables it to handle PGP-signed email correctly. I don't know whether this is true, and if so how well it works; but Googling might help. Otherwise . . .yeah, getting them to use some other client than OE, sorry. Whenever this comes up in conversations with OE users I communicate with (as it did once earlier this week), I always describe it in terms that facilitate such a change: Yeah, you've run into a bug in Outlook Express -- it doesn't obey the internet standards for email. Other Windows-based email programs, like Eudora or Lotus Notes or even Outlook itself, don't have this problem. But OE is buggy like this. And unless I really think it important to accomodate them, I don't do anything differently. Imake them work to read my email in its separate attachment containing my text, hoping that it might annoy them into dropping IE and/or complaining to MS. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
On Friday 26 March 2004 12:30, Alex Malinovich wrote:
What you're seeing is the ASCII armored ('armoured' in the rest of the
English speaking world outside of the US :) PGP signature. I don't
know if there's a way to 'teach' evolution about them, but if there is
I've never found it. If you want to check the validity of a signature
that has been encoded inline like that, you should save the message to
disk and then manually run 'gpg --verify testmessage.txt'.
Interestingly, KMail and KNode will handle (as far as I know) the
inline/armoured signatures only. In other words, they show that there
is a PGP-signature attachment, but they don't do anything with it.
Anyone know how to fix this?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
On Friday 26 March 2004 1:21 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On Friday 26 March 2004 12:30, Alex Malinovich wrote:
What you're seeing is the ASCII armored ('armoured' in the rest of
the English speaking world outside of the US :) PGP signature. I
don't know if there's a way to 'teach' evolution about them, but if
there is I've never found it. If you want to check the validity of
a signature that has been encoded inline like that, you should save
the message to disk and then manually run 'gpg --verify
testmessage.txt'.
Interestingly, KMail and KNode will handle (as far as I know) the
inline/armoured signatures only. In other words, they show that
there is a PGP-signature attachment, but they don't do anything with
it.
Anyone know how to fix this?
KMail works fine with either inline PGP (built-in) or with PGP/MIME or
S/MIME if you use the cryptplug plugins:
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/libs/cryptplug. If you install
that and point KMail at the plugins, you can verify PGP/MIME
signatures...
... of course, if you want to do signatures or decrypt stuff with
PGP/MIME, it's a little trickier than that to make it work, because you
also need gpg-agent and a pinentry program, which for some reason I
have never figured out, do not appear to be packaged at all by Debian.
In my case, I grabbed the woody packages from
http://www.opensides.be/debian and ported them to unstable.
Actually, now that I think of it, I think I will try to find out why
those haven't been packaged (I know both are GPL licensed)...
--
Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp0.pgp
Description: signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote: Rumor is that there's a plugin for Outlook Express that enables it to handle PGP-signed email correctly. I don't know whether this is true, and if so how well it works; but Googling might help. http://www.pgpi.org refers to it somewhere. Otherwise . . .yeah, getting them to use some other client than OE, sorry. Whenever this comes up in conversations with OE users I communicate with (as it did once earlier this week), I always describe it in terms that facilitate such a change: Yeah, you've run into a bug in Outlook Express -- it doesn't obey the internet standards for email. Other Windows-based email programs, like Eudora or Lotus Notes or even Outlook itself, don't have this problem. But OE is buggy like this. And unless I really think it important to accomodate them, I don't do anything differently. Imake them work to read my email in its separate attachment containing my text, hoping that it might annoy them into dropping IE and/or complaining to MS. Pretty much what I do. I also point people to Karsten Self's Rant on the topic at http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/gpg-signed-mail.html, pointing out that while these are his opinions, not mine, I'm in agreement with 99% of it. -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures [was: Re: email signatures]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 26 March 2004 3:25 pm, Wesley J Landaker wrote: ... of course, if you want to do signatures or decrypt stuff with PGP/MIME, it's a little trickier than that to make it work, because you also need gpg-agent and a pinentry program, which for some reason I have never figured out, do not appear to be packaged at all by Debian. In my case, I grabbed the woody packages from http://www.opensides.be/debian and ported them to unstable. IMO, grab what you can get from Official sources and then add the following to /etc/apt/sources.list: ## OpenGPG plugins ## deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian binary/ deb http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian testing/ deb-src http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian binary/ deb-src http://ma2geo.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de/public-debian testing/ then get the rest g Hrm, kgpgcertmanager is useless and the manager seems to be pissy that someone wants him to actually maintain it (:/) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=195131 Anyone have a clue how to get it to run? I am using the latest from Sid - -- The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint briefing slides instead of technical papers as an illustration of the problematic methods of technical communication at NASA. -- Official report on the Columbia shuttle disaster. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAZNqo9dyThdrk0kcRAuH5AKC9Rt2w8DiCtM+pQb8tZKoSdwAhdACgqo6X VhpYlUj7KPteye6NEk5kxvk= =5Lj3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Inline PGP signatures
Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unfortunately, that was my first contact with the group. I wrote to ask about a problem that I couldn't quit thinking about, and got a royal butt-chewing in return. Since apparently I'm no longer welcome in that group, I no longer have anyone to pester regarding physics questions. Killfiles are your friend. In gnus, it's easy: L a e t -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 05:28:16PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Pigeon writes: Should I file a wishlist bug asking for the mutt docs to explain what outlook compatible actually entails? Of course. Include a patch. Done! -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt
I am subscribed to a couple of Yahoo mailing lists, bjh for fans of Barclay James Harvest and progressivemusicforum for general discussion of progressive rock. The Yahoo list server strips all attachments from mail to the bjh list - including PGP signatures. Grrr. So I set pgp_create_traditional in mutt in order to produce an inline signature. Result? The posting is rejected entirely. The Yahoo list server sees the header Content-Type: application/pgp; x-action=sign; format=text, ignores the format=text, thinks This is not a plain text message and bounces the posting with an error message saying that only plain text messages are allowed. I notice that some PGP users on this list post inline-signed messages, with Content-Type: headers such as: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-action=pgp-signed and I would like to know: 1) Are these Content-Type: headers in any way modified/rewritten by the [digest version of] the Debian list server? 2) If (1) is false, are any of our inline-signers using mutt? (The digest server's header weeding prevents me from determining this by inspecting the headers.) 3) If (2) is true, how does one configure mutt to produce an inline-signed message with a Content-Type: text/plain; header instead of ...application/pgp;...format=text? The otherwise very comprehensive documentation when you hit F1 gives me no clue on this. (Of course, I have complained to Yahoo about this (and have also complained about the progressivemusicforum list server, which doesn't strip PGP signatures, but does sometimes mangle the bodies of signed messages) and (not much to my surprise) have received no response.) -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 04:37:57PM +, Pigeon wrote: ... how does one configure mutt to produce an inline-signed message with a Content-Type: text/plain; header instead of ...application/pgp;...format=text? The otherwise very comprehensive documentation when you hit F1 gives me no clue on this. Don't you feel dumb when you post a question and then discover the answer immediately afterwards? The necessary tweak was to 'set pgp_outlook_compat=yes' in addition to 'set pgp_create_traditional=yes'. Score one for semi-random experimentation. Should I file a wishlist bug asking for the mutt docs to explain what outlook compatible actually entails? Sorry for the noise! -- Pigeon Be kind to pigeons Get my GPG key here: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x21C61F7F pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Inline PGP signatures and headers created by mutt
Pigeon writes: Should I file a wishlist bug asking for the mutt docs to explain what outlook compatible actually entails? Of course. Include a patch. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures
Hello! I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg. There are some messages, which has a signature.asc attached, but KMail writes this in the messages window: The message is signed, but the validity of the signature can't be verified. Reason: No appropriate crypto plug-in was found. And when I Save the attached signature, and run cat signature.asc | gpg --import, I get this messages: gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 But, sometimes I get messages, which has also a signature file attached, and it can be verified by KMail, and the signatures can be imported with gpg. For example these keys: http://www.debian.org/security/keys.txt I can import those keys, and KMail can verify these keys, when I'm getting emails from those guys. What could be the problem with the other signature files? Thanks for the help! Daniel -- LeVA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures
Incoming from LeVA: I have installed KMail a few days ago, and with it I've installed the GnuPG program too. But some of the signatures can not be read by gpg. There's a discussion going on in debian-security on this. Suffice to say, some mailers use deprecated/obsolete mime tags, and some use the newer/correct PGP/MIME. I believe yours (kmail) is one of the former so you're going to have trouble with mine, and I have trouble with yours. But, sometimes I get messages, which has also a signature file attached, and it can be verified by KMail, and the signatures can be imported with gpg. For example these keys: http://www.debian.org/security/keys.txt I can import those keys, and KMail can verify these keys, when I'm getting emails from those guys. A nice trick pointed out to me last night: wget -O- http://www.debian.org/security/keys.txt | gpg --import Alternatively, this works too: gpg --recv-keys BLAAAH Where BLAAH is the key you want imported. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GnuPG can not read some pgp signatures
LeVA wrote: [snip] And when I Save the attached signature, and run cat signature.asc | gpg --import, I get this messages: gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 If those files are really data signatures, then this is to be expected. Do you mean keys or key signatures here? You can only --import key material. If you just want to verify a signature, you don't even need a command line switch at all. Just $ gpg signature.asc will do. -- Stefan Bellon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:07:04PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:21:53PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? For ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, read ~/.gnupg/options. From the gpg manpage: OPTIONS Long options can be put in an options file (default ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf). I had .gnupg/options, but gpg appears to use whichever is there. If they're both there, it opens gpg.conf and ignores options. --Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
on Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Friends, forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. An essay I happen to have handy on the subject... Note that the tone may not be directly relevant to you -- attitudes on PKI-signed mail seem to be improving with time. I've also (temporarially) abandoned signing my mail due to a disturbingly shifting HW situation at my end A (not so) Short Rant / FAQ on the Subject of Signed E-Mail and Public Key Infrastructure By Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're probably reading this because you either stumbled across it at my website, or I sent it to you in response to an email you sent me saying you can't read my mail. The reason is that I'm using an open Internet standard, RFC 2015 encoding, to sign, or authenticate, my mail. This standard has existed since 1996, and can be freely implemented by any email software author. It provides means to both authenticate, and encrypt, email. You have a legal right to do this in many parts of the free world. And the standard is written such that any compliant mailer _can still read_ the body of a signed message, though it may not be able to validate it, or understand the signature itself. By sending mail encoded per RFC 2015, I and others are creating compelling content under this standard. At some point it's sufficient that others will want to access it. By doing so, they are also (usually) availing themselves of *practical* crypto, including generating keys, getting these signed, and the other appurtenances of a viable public key infrastructure. Merely having a legal right to encryption doesn't mean you have the technical means. Merely having the technical capability doesn't mean you have (or know how to use) your keys. Merely having a key doesn't mean that it is signed, in use, well known, or part of a web of trust. If you find yourself with a need to produce authenticated or encrypted content, you're going to have to find, install, learn to use, and build the infrastructures necessary, for same. There's a saying among the Boy Scouts here, be prepared. Hence the intentional role I and others play as goads to the online world. As to the immediate problem, the short answer is that: - Your mailer is broken. - This is your problem, not mine. - File a bug report with your vendor. - I'm going to continue signing my mail, and if you don't change your end of things, you're going to continue having problems reading it. In some cases (you're cute, my mom, or you're offering sufficient reasons per hour), I'll make exceptions, but this is on a case-by-case basis, and I'm intentionally leaving it as a PITA manual process so that each of us is reminded it's a bad idea: me, when I do it, you, when I forget and you're stuck with unreadable mail from me. GET A REAL MAILER. - No, this isn't a virus, a bomb, a bug, a worm, or any other executable code. And if it is, that's your problem, not mine. For signed mail, both the content and the signature are simply text with a particular semantic context significat to a validation program. - If your IT or MIS department is brain-dead enough to actually strip off these attachments before you get your mail, I'm going to laugh at you in public. Sorry, this ain't the sympathy department. There's a nice rant below about why this is such a pathetic action, though, you might enjoy reading it. The long answer is the rest of this document. For a well-reasoned essay on why public key infrastructures, including encryption and authentication, are vital to a modern economy, please read: http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/war.html Your Mail is Weird I use a combination of tools in my email to create messages which are cryptographically signed in such a way that it is readily possible for the recipient to gain a good level of assurance that the message: - Originates from me. - Hasn't been modified in any way en route. This is sometimes called a digital signature (a technical term, not to be confused with the recently passed US legislation on electronic
Re: PGP Signatures
Thanks to all for your help. Indeed, options or a conf are both valuable after a test. mess-mate On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:10:24 -0500 Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | Move the file from .gnupg/options to .gnupg/gpg.conf, they changed the | location of the file a bit back. | | May want to try different keyservers (comment out the gatech, etc. | | Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): | | On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:28:31 -0500 | Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | | | | | Make one. | | | | Here's mine: | | # So we can work with pgp keys | | force-v3-sigs | | # To deal with mailer and From lines | | escape-from-lines | | # we only need to do this once while the gpg process is using the ring | | lock-once | | # Our options | | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve include-disabled include-revoked |honor-http-proxy | | keyserver x-hkp://pgp.gatech.edu | | keyserver x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu | | keyserver x-hkp://wwwkeys.us.pgp.net | Thanks, but when I add this keyservers like above and key-server-options... in | ~/.gnupg/options my system freezes :-( | I'm running woody and toke gnupg there. | mess-mate | | | | | | | | Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): | | | | On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 | | Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | | | On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | | On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 | | | Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | | | | | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | | | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and |added | | | | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | | | | mess-mate | | | | | | | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | | | | the keyserver for you. | | | | | | | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? | | | | | | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | | | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. | | | | | ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? | | here are the files I have in ~/.gnupg : | | mess.txt options pubring.gpg pubring.gpg~ random_seed secring.gpg |trustdb.gpg | | mess-mate | | | | -- | | Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open | | Windows. | | | | | | | | | | :wq! | | --- | | Robert L. Harris | PGP Key ID: FC96D405 | | | | DISCLAIMER: | | These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. | | FYI: | | perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' | | | | | | | -- | Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open | Windows. | | | | | :wq! | --- | Robert L. Harris | PGP Key ID: FC96D405 | | DISCLAIMER: | These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. | FYI: | perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' | | -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. msg27503/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: Friends, forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. That last sounds about right. Good mail clients can verify the signatures automatically. It doesn't really matter what OS he's using. GnuPG has a Windows port available, and even Outlook Express has a GnuPG plugin available, if anyone is foolish enough to actually use that email client. Of course, none of this is supported by default in Windows... -- My secret to happiness... is that I have a heart of a 12-year-old boy. It's over here in a jar. Would you like to see it? msg27508/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | mess-mate | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | the keyserver for you. | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. msg27114/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | mess-mate | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | the keyserver for you. | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. -- Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 | Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | | mess-mate | | | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | | the keyserver for you. | | | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? | | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. | ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? here are the files I have in ~/.gnupg : mess.txt options pubring.gpg pubring.gpg~ random_seed secring.gpg trustdb.gpg mess-mate -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. msg27139/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
Make one. Here's mine: # So we can work with pgp keys force-v3-sigs # To deal with mailer and From lines escape-from-lines # we only need to do this once while the gpg process is using the ring lock-once # Our options keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve include-disabled include-revoked honor-http-proxy keyserver x-hkp://pgp.gatech.edu keyserver x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu keyserver x-hkp://wwwkeys.us.pgp.net Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 | Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | | mess-mate | | | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | | the keyserver for you. | | | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? | | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. | ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? here are the files I have in ~/.gnupg : mess.txt options pubring.gpg pubring.gpg~ random_seed secring.gpg trustdb.gpg mess-mate -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. :wq! --- Robert L. Harris | PGP Key ID: FC96D405 DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' msg27165/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? Go look at the comments in your .gnupg/options -- .''`. Baloo [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg27169/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:21:53PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? For ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, read ~/.gnupg/options. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
This one time, at band camp, mess-mate said: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. | ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? here are the files I have in ~/.gnupg : mess.txt options pubring.gpg pubring.gpg~ random_seed secring.gpg trustdb.gpg It goes in options. -- -- | Stephen Gran | Man has never reconciled himself to the | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ten commandments. | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | | -- msg27179/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
Move the file from .gnupg/options to .gnupg/gpg.conf, they changed the location of the file a bit back. May want to try different keyservers (comment out the gatech, etc. Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:28:31 -0500 Robert L. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | Make one. | | Here's mine: | # So we can work with pgp keys | force-v3-sigs | # To deal with mailer and From lines | escape-from-lines | # we only need to do this once while the gpg process is using the ring | lock-once | # Our options | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve include-disabled include-revoked honor-http-proxy | keyserver x-hkp://pgp.gatech.edu | keyserver x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu | keyserver x-hkp://wwwkeys.us.pgp.net Thanks, but when I add this keyservers like above and key-server-options... in ~/.gnupg/options my system freezes :-( I'm running woody and toke gnupg there. mess-mate | | | | Thus spake mess-mate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): | | On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 07:07:30 -0500 | Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:39:57AM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:26:26 -0800 | | Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | | | | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:50:06PM +0100, mess-mate wrote: | | | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added | | | to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. | | | mess-mate | | | | | | Unless you've set your gnupg to automagically grab public keys from | | | the keyserver for you. | | | | | Uhh, good idea, how can I do that ?? | | | | In ~/.gnupg/gnupg.conf, uncomment or add | | keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve. | | | ?? there is no gnupg.conf !! Did I missing somewhat ? | here are the files I have in ~/.gnupg : | mess.txt options pubring.gpg pubring.gpg~ random_seed secring.gpg trustdb.gpg | mess-mate | | -- | Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open | Windows. | | | | | :wq! | --- | Robert L. Harris | PGP Key ID: FC96D405 | | DISCLAIMER: | These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. | FYI: | perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' | | -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. :wq! --- Robert L. Harris | PGP Key ID: FC96D405 DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else. FYI: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' msg27263/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:28:31AM -0500, Robert L. Harris wrote: Make one. No, the preferred file this is in is .gnupg/options. Having two different options files *will* be a pain in the ass. -- .''`. Baloo [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg27281/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
PGP Signatures
Friends, forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. regards Leo It use to be said if your not on the list you can't come into the nightclub. I say I'm on the LIST so don't CC me. _ Chat online in real time with MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.co.uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
On Monday 27 Jan 2003 2:51 pm, debian parisc wrote: It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. If you are using pgp you can verify the authenticity of the message - i.e. it comes from who the 'from' line says, rather than someone else. It also verifies that the message hasnt been altered during transmission. (This is a simplistic explanation, see www.gnupg.org for more). Tom msg26591/pgp0.pgp Description: signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: Friends, forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. That last sounds about right. Good mail clients can verify the signatures automatically. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PGP Signatures
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have been made up to me. It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 (I'm at work), that they have no significance. The signatures are a way of verifying the sender and content of an email. The sender of a message has two keys, a private key, and a public key. The sender signs the message with the private key, and the signature can be verified with the sender's public key. If the contents of the message are changed, the signature does not match the message. -- Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg26602/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:27 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: | forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with | PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of | your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have | been made up to me. | | It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 | (I'm at work), that they have no significance. | | The signatures are a way of verifying the sender and content of an | email. The sender of a message has two keys, a private key, and a | public key. The sender signs the message with the private key, and the | signature can be verified with the sender's public key. If the contents | of the message are changed, the signature does not match the message. | | -- | Seneca | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. mess-mate -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. msg26656/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP Signatures
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:06:27 -0500 Seneca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:51:39PM +, debian parisc wrote: | forgive me for my ignorance, but I see a lot of emails on this list with | PGP signatures. Exactly what purpose does it serve having PGP as part of | your signature? They just look like a string of characters that could have | been made up to me. | | It maybe because I receive most of the emails from this list in windows95 | (I'm at work), that they have no significance. | | The signatures are a way of verifying the sender and content of an | email. The sender of a message has two keys, a private key, and a | public key. The sender signs the message with the private key, and the | signature can be verified with the sender's public key. If the contents | of the message are changed, the signature does not match the message. | | -- | Seneca | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | But the senders public key must be retrieved from a key-server and added to your own key-list before an automated check is possible. mess-mate like this: Signature made lun 27 jan 2003 17:06:27 CET Good signature from Seneca Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Computers are like air conditioners, they are useless when you open Windows. 0001.mimetmp Description: PGP signature msg26658/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
correct gpg/pgp signatures (why reject a .changes file?)
Hello,
recently, I was trying to upload a package of mine to a server and
got this message in return:
PGP/GnuPG signature check failed on sumo_1.0-5.2_i386.changes
ERROR: Header line added to ASCII armor: Hash: SHA1
ASCII armor corrupted.
Error: Transport armor stripping failed for file /tmp/pgptemp.$00
For a usage summary, type: pgp -h
For more detailed help, consult the PGP User's Guide.
gpg: Warning: using insecure memory!
gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information
gpg: Warning: unsafe permissions on file
/home/ftp/ftpfau/ftplinux/DQueued/./debian-keyring.gpg
gpg: Signature made Fri Nov 22 04:09:55 2002 MET using DSA key ID
A690AB48
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
(Exit status 2)
sumo_1.0-5.2_i386.changes has bad PGP/GnuPG signature!
Removing sumo_1.0-5.2_i386.changes, but keeping its associated files
for now.
Is it because I'm simply not allowed to do that (as not being a
debian developer) or is there something I can do about it?
Thanks,
andrej
--
echo ${girl_name} /etc/dumpdates
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: correct gpg/pgp signatures (why reject a .changes file?)
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:18:28PM -0200, andrej hocevar wrote: Hello, recently, I was trying to upload a package of mine to a server and got this message in return: [...] Is it because I'm simply not allowed to do that (as not being a debian developer) or is there something I can do about it? If you're trying to upload to a Debian queue then you certainly can't without being a developer! You need a sponsor. I don't know what site you're talking about though. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About PGP signatures
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com writes: Request: I'd like a list of clients supporting RFC 2015 attachments and the plugins necessary to support this. Of particular interest: All Windows-based clients which support MIME only by translation at gateways (for example, Lotus Notes, and probably MS-Exchange-based solutions) cannot implement RFC 2015 since it's a MIME application. -- Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Stuttgart http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/ RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898
Re: About PGP signatures
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com writes: Request: I'd like a list of clients supporting RFC 2015 attachments and the plugins necessary to support this. Of particular interest: All Windows-based clients which support MIME only by translation at gateways (for example, Lotus Notes, and probably MS-Exchange-based solutions) cannot implement RFC 2015 since it's a MIME application. bummer. (heh, heh.) -- DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #25 from Will Trillich [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Did you know you have MORE THAN ONE CONSOLE to use? There's six, by default: try Control-Alt-F6 to see console six, Ctl-Alt-F3 for console 3, and so forth. (If you don't use the X window display system, you don't need to include the control key.) Each console can have its own login, running its own jobs. Very handy! Also see http://newbieDoc.sourceForge.net/ ...
Re: About PGP signatures
On 24 May 2001 11:12:27, Craig wrote: FWIW, I'm using Evolution 0.10, and I have no problem reading PGP signatures from mutt users. I am using mhn/exmh and have no problems with mutt PGP sigs. I had been unaware that any MUA had problems with mutt sigs. -- Paul T. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] -currently seeking employment-
Re: About PGP signatures
On Wed, 23 May 2001 19:57:17 -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Noah Supporting RFCs is fine and should be encouraged, but from what Noah I've seen there is not another mail reader in existance that can Noah verify mutt's attached signatures. Just to add to the list, the CVS version of Gnus handles PGP/MIME as well. john.
Re: About PGP signatures
Noah Supporting RFCs is fine and should be encouraged, but from what Noah I've seen there is not another mail reader in existance that can Noah verify mutt's attached signatures. john Just to add to the list, the CVS version of Gnus handles PGP/MIME as john well. I thoght that Gnus itself doesn't support PGP at all. It needs Mailcrypt for PGP. And mailcrypt seems to support only embeded sigs. Or am I wrong? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)| | GnuPG 1024D/323BDEE6 D7F7 561E 4C1D 8A15 8E80 E4AE BE1A 53EB 323B DEE6 | | AGAVA Software Company (http://www.agava.com/) | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: About PGP signatures
On 24 May 2001 14:57:12 +0400, Ilya Martynov [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Ilya I thoght that Gnus itself doesn't support PGP at all. It needs Ilya Mailcrypt for PGP. And mailcrypt seems to support only embeded Ilya sigs. Or am I wrong? You're wrong. 8^)= The version of Gnus in CVS (Oort Gnus) comes with a file called gpg.el, which adds the ability to sign, verify, encrypt and decrypt mail (and I guess news, tho I never checked) in the MIME-attached format. I was using it for a bit, then I fell back to 5.8.8 when I ran out of time to keep up to date on the development. I don't know if gpg.el will work with the current release version of Gnus, but it may be worth a look. john.
Re: About PGP signatures
At 01:59 24.05.2001, you wrote: elsewhere, I don't think anything else can verify mutt's attached PGP/MIME signatures. Bad luck, but Eudora with PGP installed can. It won't even open the attachment without getting the key from a keyserver or already knowing it. Never underestimate Windoze as long as there are still non-M$ programs running under it. Volker -- Volker Gerstenkorn Aus Lübeck kommt nicht nur Marzipan... pgpzCHupHsTcE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About PGP signatures
on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 07:57:17PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:43:47PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: get a real mail client that supports RFCs. the relevant RFC is 2015 i recommend mutt Supporting RFCs is fine and should be encouraged, Note that RFC 2015 is a draft standard, it's not officially adopted by IETF. It is supported by a variety of clients, however. I've researched this issue several times as I'm one of the people who signs messages. Rant in progress. Note also that the authors of RFC 2015 and mutt see to have more than a passing familiarity with one another. but from what I've seen there is not another mail reader in existence that can verify mutt's attached signatures. Not true, as noted by others. Request: I'd like a list of clients supporting RFC 2015 attachments and the plugins necessary to support this. Of particular interest: - AOL - dtmail - Eudora for Legacy MS Windows and Mac. - Forte Agent - Juno - Lotus Notes - MS Internet Mail Service - MS Outlook - MS Outlook Express - Netscape 3.x / 4.x - Novell GroupWise - Pegasus Mail for Win32 - Turnpike Anyone having specific information on any of these clients please mail me off-list. I wrestled with this for a very very long time when switching to mutt. I've read the mutt developers' reasons for why inline sigs are bad, but when doing things the right way breaks things for everybody else, that's a bad situation. Not if it forces everyone else to consider adding RFC 2015 capabilities to their mail client. Signing and encryption are useful technologies (though not panaceas). The should be encouraged. I know mutt people just come back and say well everybody else is broken, but that argument just doesn't hold weight with me. Maybe mutt needs to wait until the rest of the world catches up to it, or, if the world has no intention of ever catching up to it, maybe the RFC needs rethinking. My philosophy: - You are responsible for verifying that I am the sender of a message purporting to come from me, and that the messages are intact. - GPG signatures area technical tool providing a level of assurance that this. - I sign all mail. - The standard is open. It's not officially accepted, but there's working code and a rough consensus. That works for me. I'm prepared to let the rest of the world reconsider its complacency. Cheers. -- Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.comhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of Gestalt don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Disclaimer: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ pgpsxuENr40Yp.pgp Description: PGP signature
About PGP signatures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I noticed that there are several members PGP-signing their postings. However, the signature is MIME-formatted and appears as an attachment in my mail client, Netscape Messenger. Because there is no built-in PGP function, I am forced to copy/paste the message to TkPGP to verify it. *But* the signature is separated from the message; so, how do I actually verify the message? Eddy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7C7I352xca/NTIl8RAlzKAJ9ksgQPsY62hjiUv0h3b00HD489DgCgmEfX lfPL/ai7JZ3M6Uof7+Qe6pY= =ajbt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: About PGP signatures
get a real mail client that supports RFCs. the relevant RFC is 2015 i reccommend mutt On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:51:18PM +0100, Eddy Young wrote: Hi, I noticed that there are several members PGP-signing their postings. However, the signature is MIME-formatted and appears as an attachment in my mail client, Netscape Messenger. Because there is no built-in PGP function, I am forced to copy/paste the message to TkPGP to verify it. *But* the signature is separated from the message; so, how do I actually verify the message? Eddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpfd297GRyUy.pgp Description: PGP signature
