Hi Ludwig, Am 2014-08-17 12:02, schrieb Ludwig Hügelschäfer: > On 17.08.14 11:37, Jogi Hofmüller wrote: > >> Uh, well, then I underline my opinion that the wording is too >> strong. > > If you are you referring to this message: > > + "The GNOME keyring manager hijacked the GnuPG agent."; > + "GnuPG will not work proberly - please configure that " > + "tool to not interfere with the GnuPG system!"; > > then this comes directly from the underlying gpg2. We cannot influence > the text. I also think, that the gnupg developpers did not deliberatly > choose such a strong wording.
Uh, thanks for correcting that. I should have investigated deeper I guess. > I agree completely with "don't make crypto overly complicated". > > However, Enigmail relies completely on gnupg for the crypto stuff. If > gnupg decides to "hate" the gnome keyring behaviour regarding > gnupg-agent, then we are only the messenger of the gnupg status output. > > If you want to discuss gnupg behaviour, the best place would be the > gnupg-users list ([email protected]). Alright, I might even do that. My apologies for ranting at the wrong crowd! Regards, -- j.hofmüller mur.sat -- a space art project http://sat.mur.at/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
