On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:12:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >
> > Not true - OTR's signing key to authenticate a session is similar to
> > OpenPGP. The difference is that session keys are authenticated, not
> > messsage content, and repudia
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough about the two desirable qualities:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Callme Whatiwant wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>
>> On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
>> > to wo
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
> > to wonder if it's possible to use my GPG key for OTR.
>
> Honestly I think that the absence of many of the PGP features is the
> strengt
Am Sun, 30 Jun 2013 10:31:32 -0400
schrieb Ian Goldberg :
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:55:32PM +0200, kardan wrote:
> > Thanks! These are the details I am not aware of. Here is the next
> > one:
> >
> > export LIBS=/usr/include/libotr/
>
> I think the above line is wrong. LIBS should point to l
On 07/02/2013 10:12 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Howard Chu writes:
>
>> Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>>> Adding complications such as key sync, key management, revocation etc.
>>> is not what I consider useful for the general case.
>>
>> Indeed, it completely misses the point. OTR provides repudiable
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:12:10AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Not true - OTR's signing key to authenticate a session is similar to
> OpenPGP. The difference is that session keys are authenticated, not
> messsage content, and repudiability (word?) is achieved by using
> symmetric MACs and discl
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 06:56:50AM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> >On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >>I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
> >>to wonder if it's possible to use my GPG key for OTR.
> >
> >Honestly I think that the absence of many of
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:48:26PM +0200, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
> > to wonder if it's possible to use my GPG key for OTR.
>
> Honestly I think that the absence of many of the PGP features is the
Howard Chu writes:
> Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>> Adding complications such as key sync, key management, revocation etc.
>> is not what I consider useful for the general case.
>
> Indeed, it completely misses the point. OTR provides repudiable
> communication. Unifying all your keys would weaken or
Jonas Wielicki wrote:
On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
to wonder if it's possible to use my GPG key for OTR.
Honestly I think that the absence of many of the PGP features is the
strength of OTR. OTR is so incredibly easy and, in
On 02.07.2013 15:35, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I seem to be more and more going to a PGP model, and have
> to wonder if it's possible to use my GPG key for OTR.
Honestly I think that the absence of many of the PGP features is the
strength of OTR. OTR is so incredibly easy and, in my opinion, the only
c
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:12:53AM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> I'm not an OTR dev, but I spend a lot of time thinking about these issues
> since I'm working on OTR key syncing. I think the reason you outlined, not
> automatically cryptographically linking accounts is a good one. I t
12 matches
Mail list logo
