Am I signing my messages correctly?
--
Misha Shnurapet
°v° I ♥ Linux
/(_)\ Download the free operating system here:
^ ^ http://fedoraproject.org
signature.asc
Description: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To
Misha Shnurapet wrote:
Am I signing my messages correctly?
Yes. It shows as a untrusted good signature.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
fedora-list mailing list
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[please excuse delay in replying. i was waiting for noise level to drop]
Needham and Schroeder famously said that anyone who thinks his problem will
be solved by cryptography hasn't understood his problem, and hasn't
understood cryptography.
i am not familiar
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 14:04:11 -0400,
Steven W. Orr ste...@syslang.net wrote:
But what G did was much worse. He insisted on putting a little bomb in his
mail that causes a number of us to just plain hang for periods that are
measured in minutes, not just once, but for every message that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/14/2009 8:24 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 14:04:11 -0400,
Steven W. Orr ste...@syslang.net wrote:
But what G did was much worse. He insisted on putting a little bomb in his
mail that causes a number of us to just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/14/09 11:17, quoth David:
On 7/14/2009 8:24 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 14:04:11 -0400,
Steven W. Orr ste...@syslang.net wrote:
But what G did was much worse. He insisted on putting a little bomb in his
mail that
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:17:05 -0400,
David dgbo...@comcast.net wrote:
My request, it was never a demand in spite of what others have said, was
to publish the key or not sign to the list. And I used the word 'please'
twice. Several users have agreed with me. And several users have agree
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 18:14:57 -0400,
Steven W. Orr ste...@syslang.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
The Enigmail package gets added to Thunderbird and provides the human
interface to GnuPG. Enigmail does provide a setting on a per addressbook entry
for whether messages sent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/12/09 09:49, quoth Aaron Konstam:
I guess it is a matter of philosophy. I think signing mail to a list is
a waste of time and space.
On the fedora list what difference does it make if the poster is really
who he says he is, I could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/12/09 19:05, quoth Rick Sewill:
My thought is to pgp sign my mail.
Those who know me, who have spoken to me over the phone and have
received mail from me, can save my signature from my mail and know the
mail, and any future mail with that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/12/09 12:47, quoth Les:
Hi, Steven,
The point about the envelope is a good one. It is a point I never
considered. But g's attitude doesn't make me fond of signing, in fact
it does more to discourage users of messaging services to
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 12:22 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/12/09 19:05, quoth Rick Sewill:
My thought is to pgp sign my mail.
Those who know me, who have spoken to me over the phone and have
received mail from me, can save my
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Rick Sewill rsew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 12:22 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/12/09 19:05, quoth Rick Sewill:
My thought is to pgp sign my mail.
Those who know me, who have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/09 13:03, quoth Rick Sewill:
Steve, when I click on your signature, I can extract your public DSA
public key, F0BE3724, see that it is verified, because you registered it
with the pgp servers (Thank you for registering!), but untrusted by
Fennix wrote:
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often
but does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull
contribution to a problem at hand. For some to try and to tar him with
the association/way of doing things such as Karl definitely is in
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I guess it is a matter of philosophy. I think signing mail to a list is
a waste of time and space.
On the fedora list what difference does it make if the poster is really
who he says he is, I could understand if the poster was selling me
something but any ideas he or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/09 13:43, quoth Fennix:
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often but
does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull contribution
to a problem at hand. For some to try and to tar him with the
Steven W. Orr wrote:
Sometimes people do things on the net that are considered to be minor
violations of social protocols. This is all a part of being civilized. Posting
html, top posting, not reducing quoted text, these are all examples of how
people can get legitimately irritated. Other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/13/2009 1:43 PM, Fennix wrote:
big snip
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often
but does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull
contribution to a problem at hand. For some to try and to tar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/13/09 14:21, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
You know, there is a simple fix to this - someone that has G's
public key could upload it to a keyserver. evilNow, if someone
wanted to be nasty, they could upload a fake public key with his
email
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
The whole point of PGP-style signatures is the web of trust. If you
true. tho, if you email someone and they send you their pgp sig, then you
can feel reasonably certain that pgp sig is from them.
The point of key servers is not to verify anything, it's to make keys
Fennix wrote:
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often but
does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull contribution
i thank you for your support. even if it was 'text/html'. :)
i am not aware of 'karl', from what you say about him, i appreciate
Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/13/09 14:21, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
You know, there is a simple fix to this - someone that has G's
public key could upload it to a keyserver. evilNow, if someone
wanted to be nasty, they could upload a fake public key with his
email address. Then if there is
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:53 +, g wrote:
if you are still in question as to advantage of pgp sigs, i would be
happy
to look for it and post it so that all can see that there are times
when
having a pgp sig does work.
Whether it works or not is not the issue. The issue is what does it
work
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 19:17:48 +,
g gel...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Fennix wrote:
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often but
does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull contribution
i thank you for your support. even if it was
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It was a multipart message. You should be able to override the sender's
preference and display text/plain in preference to text/html (or just not
display text/html parts inline).
That way even though the extra bandwidth is wasted, you at least get to see
the
part
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Mikkel L.
Ellertsonmik...@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/13/09 14:21, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
You know, there is a simple fix to this - someone that has G's
public key could upload it to a keyserver. evilNow, if someone
wanted to be
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, ggel...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Fennix wrote:
Somehow I am disappointed to see all of this. G does not write often but
does so when he does think that it is worth offering a usefull contribution
i thank you for your support. even if it was 'text/html'. :)
i
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I wasn't commenting on the list guidelines. I was trying to help someone that
appeared to be seeing html when he would have preferred to have seen the
included plain text part. That might be useful for him in general, not just
on the Fedora lists.
LOL - somehow I
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It was a multipart message. You should be able to override the sender's
preference and display text/plain in preference to text/html (or just not
display text/html parts inline).
i do have thunderbird set to 'view as text'.
i was just making light comment of fennix
I guess it is a matter of philosophy. I think signing mail to a list is
a waste of time and space.
On the fedora list what difference does it make if the poster is really
who he says he is, I could understand if the poster was selling me
something but any ideas he or she sells are either valid
On Friday 10 July 2009 05:47:52 pm Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
g wrote:
one of reasons that i use a pgp sig is that it maintains my idenity and
prevents someone from trying to send an email as me, which has happened
on this very list.
How does it maintain your identity when we can not
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 18:38 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/11/09 18:05, quoth David:
\
If I may, I'd like to amplify on G's lack of Netiquette. I am also using
Thunderbird with the Enigmail plugin. I too have my system set up for
Les wrote:
Hi, Steven,
The point about the envelope is a good one. It is a point I never
considered. But g's attitude doesn't make me fond of signing, in fact
it does more to discourage users of messaging services to not use PGP or
SMIME to sign messages. His actions slow access,
On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 09:47 -0700, Les wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 18:38 -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/11/09 18:05, quoth David:
\
If I may, I'd like to amplify on G's lack of Netiquette. I am also using
Thunderbird with the
On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 09:47 -0700, Les wrote:
One might make it more robust and not pass on unregistered
emails, nor those that do not pass verification (whatever that may end
up being).
But that would be the end of spammers as they would have to
register, and be verified.
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 00:49 +, g wrote:
another reason, at least as i was told, key servers do not verify who
submits a key is actual owner of address.
The whole point of PGP-style signatures is the web of trust. If you
don't get someone's public key directly from them (e.g. at a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/09 23:34, quoth Steven W. Orr:
On 07/10/09 18:47, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
New entry in my access file
From:gel...@bellsouth.net
On 7/10/2009 11:34 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/10/09 18:47, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
New entry in my access file
From:gel...@bellsouth.net REJECT 553 PGP signing with no
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 12:05 -0400, David wrote:
On 7/10/2009 11:34 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/10/09 18:47, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
New entry in my access file
On 7/11/2009 4:45 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 12:05 -0400, David wrote:
On 7/10/2009 11:34 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/10/09 18:47, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
New
David wrote:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends on the various Keyservers, 20 +- seconds *each* Kerserver for
*each* post. Two in one thread? Does it twice. Three? Does it three
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/11/09 18:05, quoth David:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends on the various Keyservers, 20 +- seconds *each* Kerserver for
*each*
On 7/11/2009 6:38 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/11/09 18:05, quoth David:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends on the various Keyservers, 20 +- seconds *each* Kerserver for
*each*
On 7/11/2009 6:15 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
David wrote:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends on the various Keyservers, 20 +- seconds *each* Kerserver for
*each* post. Two in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/11/09 21:14, quoth David:
I already have your public key sir! :-)
And if we ever meet then we could sign each others keys.
I do not, as a practice, sign emails to mail lists. Nor do I add long
'signatures' to anything.
Consistency has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/11/09 21:14, quoth David:
I already have your public key sir! :-)
And if we ever meet then we could sign each others keys.
I do not, as a practice, sign emails to mail lists. Nor do I add long
'signatures' to anything.
Consistency has
On Saturday 11 July 2009, David wrote:
On 7/11/2009 6:15 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
David wrote:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends on the various Keyservers, 20 +- seconds
On 7/11/2009 9:31 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 07/11/09 21:14, quoth David:
I already have your public key sir! :-)
And if we ever meet then we could sign each others keys.
You and I, properly identified, sure. It would be my pleasure.
I do not, as a practice, sign emails to mail
On 7/11/2009 10:10 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 11 July 2009, David wrote:
On 7/11/2009 6:15 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
David wrote:
My email client, Thunderbird, goes out and searches for his 'not made
public as it should be' public Key each and every post. Which takes,
depends
g wrote:
one of reasons that i use a pgp sig is that it maintains my idenity and
prevents someone from trying to send an email as me, which has happened
on this very list.
How does it maintain your identity when we can not verify that you
signed the message. Without having your public key,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 17:47:52 -0500,
Mikkel L. Ellertson mik...@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
How does it maintain your identity when we can not verify that you
signed the message. Without having your public key, all we know is
that someone signed the message. So, your signing your messages sent
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
How does it maintain your identity when we can not verify that you
signed the message.
as i told david, ask.
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
i wish he would.
seems david is having menstrual
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 17:47:52 -0500,
Mikkel L. Ellertson mik...@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
How does it maintain your identity when we can not verify that you
signed the message. Without having your public key, all we know is
that someone signed the message. So, your
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Because the messages are signed with the same key. So whoever is creating
the signed messages has access to the private key. Key servers don't add a lot
of assurance on top of this. And they add a risk that it tells other parties
who you are communicating with.
thank
g wrote:
[big snip]
This sub-thread needs to stop now. If all there is to say in a reply
is name-calling, it does not belong on fedora-list. Please respect
the many thousands of other list members.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
Todd Zullinger wrote:
This sub-thread needs to stop now. If all there is to say in a reply
is name-calling, it does not belong on fedora-list. Please respect
the many thousands of other list members.
i agree about name-calling, but to say that one is 'bitching' is not same
as saying one is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/10/09 18:47, quoth Mikkel L. Ellertson:
David, one way to solve the problem is to write a filter rule that
sends g's messages directly to trash.
New entry in my access file
From:gel...@bellsouth.net REJECT 553 PGP signing with no public
58 matches
Mail list logo
