Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Brian! On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Brian May wrote: > > "Peter" == Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter> Pollywog, you really should not include signatures of other > Peter> mails in replies :) > > but that mail was PGP/MIME formatted. So I don't think it is quite as simpl

Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Brian May
> "Peter" == Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Hi Pollywog! >> mutt thinks: > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 30 >> 03:33:11 2000) --] > gpg: Signature made Sun Apr 30 02:17:24 >> 2000 CEST using DSA key ID 2C447AFC > gpg: BAD signature from >

Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Ethan! On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Ethan Benson wrote: > > mutt thinks: > > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 30 03:33:11 2000) --] > > > gpg: Signature made Sun Apr 30 02:17:24 2000 CEST using DSA key ID > > > 2C447AFC > > > gpg: BAD signature from "Ethan R. Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 03:34:25AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Hi Pollywog! > > > mutt thinks: > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 30 03:33:11 2000) --] > > gpg: Signature made Sun Apr 30 02:17:24 2000 CEST using DSA key ID 2C447AFC > > gpg: BAD signature from "Ethan R. Benson <

Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Pollywog! > mutt thinks: > > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 30 03:33:11 2000) --] > > gpg: Signature made Sun Apr 30 02:17:24 2000 CEST using DSA key ID 2C447AFC > > gpg: BAD signature from "Ethan R. Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > > [-- End of PGP output --] Argl. I really should

Re: PGP vs. GPG && BAD SIGNATURE

2000-04-30 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Pollywog! mutt thinks: > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Sun Apr 30 03:33:11 2000) --] > gpg: Signature made Sun Apr 30 02:17:24 2000 CEST using DSA key ID 2C447AFC > gpg: BAD signature from "Ethan R. Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > [-- End of PGP output --] What might be the reason? On

Re: PGP vs. GPG

2000-04-30 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:58:09AM -, Pollywog wrote: > > On 30-Apr-2000 00:17:24 Ethan Benson wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:12:19AM -, Pollywog wrote: > >> Where does one get the extensions? > > > > i don't know where the upstream sources are, but they are packaged > > for > > de

Re: PGP vs. GPG

2000-04-30 Thread Pollywog
On 30-Apr-2000 00:17:24 Ethan Benson wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:12:19AM -, Pollywog wrote: >> Where does one get the extensions? > > i don't know where the upstream sources are, but they are packaged > for > debian (potato at least) in non-US/non-free gpg-idea and gpg-rsa. > > not

Re: PGP vs. GPG

2000-04-30 Thread Peter Palfrader
Hi Pollywog! On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Pollywog wrote: > Where does one get the extensions? You'll find it at your local gpg mirror. e.g: http://gd.tuwien.ac.at/privacy/gnupg/contrib/ You want {idea,rsa{,ref}}.c Don't forget to put load-extension idea load-extension rsa into your ~/.gnupg/opti

Re: PGP vs. GPG

2000-04-30 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 12:12:19AM -, Pollywog wrote: > Where does one get the extensions? i don't know where the upstream sources are, but they are packaged for debian (potato at least) in non-US/non-free gpg-idea and gpg-rsa. note that gpg-rsa is illegal inside the US. there is a gpg-rs

Re: PGP vs. GPG

2000-04-30 Thread Pollywog
Where does one get the extensions? On 29-Apr-2000 23:13:57 Ethan Benson wrote: > that version is anchient, and was not very compatible, even with > newer > PGP. GPG is not really compatible with PGP2.6 (read RSA/IDEA) (not > without the non-free extensions)