Aha! This makes a lot of sense. Thanks Werner!
Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Werner Koch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:33 AM > To: Jeffrey Stedfast <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Problems with GPGME returning "Not Implemented" or > "Configuration error" > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:57, [email protected] said: > > > I spotted the fact that I was (incorrectly) using > > gpgme_op_decrypt_verify() when I think I should be using > > gpgme_op_decrypt(), so I fixed that but I still get “Not Implemented”. > > The reason why it shows "Not implemented" is that you used > gpgme_set_passphrase_cb () with GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS. gpgsm does > not support a passphrase callback in the same way as gpg does. In particular > gpgme sets up a command line edit handler to push the passphrase via the > callback to to gpg. gpgsm has no --command-fd option but only a -- > passphrase-fd option which can be used with --pinentry-mode=loopback. > > Right, this should be fixed. I think we already have a feature request for > this. > > As a workaround, you should > > gpgme_set_passphrase_cb (ctx, NULL, NULL); > > after switching to GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS. This will then use the pinentry > and thus you need to provide a dummy pinentry for your test suite (or use > no passphrase at all). > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner > > -- > Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
