Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:00:39 +0200 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 31 oct 19, 11:55:01, The Wanderer wrote: > > > > (IMO the correct behavior should be chosen automatically by > > "reply", and there should be separate "reply to sender", "reply to > > all", and "reply to list" options in the

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

On Jo, 31 oct 19, 11:55:01, The Wanderer wrote: > > (IMO the correct behavior should be chosen automatically by "reply", and > there should be separate "reply to sender", "reply to all", and "reply > to list" options in the client. I don't know of anything which > implements that, however.) I

Re: KISS gpg

>> AFAICT the sockets are not created in GNUPGHOME, so your "gpg with other >> GNUPGHOME" will still talk to the same agent and confusion will ensue. > yes seems the only way is true a different user, as it seems to be per > design one user - one agent, which also makes sense as the agent is the >

Re: KISS gpg

On 2019-10-30 18:58, Nicolas George wrote: Hi. Is there somewhere in Debian a KISS version of GnuPG or something compatible? The current default version of GnuPG, since 2015, necessarily uses a client-server agent to access the private keys. While it is convenient and secure for everyday use,

Re: KISS gpg

Stefan Monnier wrote: > AFAICT the sockets are not created in GNUPGHOME, so your "gpg with other > GNUPGHOME" will still talk to the same agent and confusion will ensue. yes seems the only way is true a different user, as it seems to be per design one user - one agent, which also makes sense as

Re: KISS gpg

>> so even changing $HOME won't help and I don't see any envvar which >> influences it.  I suggest you contact the GPG development folks (maybe >> open an issue for it). > > Not sure - cause if you close gpg and agent etc. and set the GNUPGHOME and > start again all the work will be done in the

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > The problem is to run instances of gpg simultaneously: one to access the > key without any risk of modifying it, one to do the work. > Looks like the only risk is you :) How would you modify a key without wanting it?! As I mentioned before - to me it looks like your use

Re: [OT] Email signature double dash delimiters (Was: KISS gpg)

Cindy Sue Causey (12019-10-31): > Maybe it's only certain ones? Or maybe the correct answer has already been given twice in this very discussion: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/10/msg01140.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/10/msg01152.html Regards, -- Nicolas George

[OT] Email signature double dash delimiters (Was: KISS gpg)

On 10/31/19, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the >> - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will >> have what you need. > > Huh. There's that "dash space

Re: KISS gpg

deloptes (12019-10-31): > Not sure - cause if you close gpg and agent etc. and set the GNUPGHOME and > start again all the work will be done in the new GNUPGHOME. The sockets > will be created when you start gpg. > > What is the problem with it? How do you expect the programs to exchange >

Re: KISS gpg

Stefan Monnier wrote: > so even changing $HOME won't help and I don't see any envvar which > influences it.  I suggest you contact the GPG development folks (maybe > open an issue for it). Not sure - cause if you close gpg and agent etc. and set the GNUPGHOME and start again all the work will be

Re: KISS gpg

> >> gpg --homedir ../another-dir --change-passphrase >> >> to change its passphrase. > > That would be the idea. And for that, I need a KISS gpg, because current > gpg does not honor the homedir setting for private keys, because it uses > the agent instead. This

Re: KISS gpg

On 2019-10-31, The Wanderer wrote: > > (I do understand what you probably mean by the overall statement, of > course, but linguistics is one of my interests and this has caught my > attention.) > I believe the OP is French and means 'exigent' is the usual French sense of the word---demanding,

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > deloptes (12019-10-31): >> again the homedir option is for the agent and not for gpg - and you >> should setup your environment properly > > Again, without perfect control and feedback, this is not acceptable. > What do you mean by control and feedback - have you seen the

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

Gene Heskett (12019-10-31): > And this is something that the kmail of yore, now forked to TDE, makes > simple. If you sort incoming mail to list yy in its own folder, then it > is sufficient to name that list in the folder definitions. I've been > doing that for so long I'd consider any email

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

On Thursday 31 October 2019 12:10:01 Nicolas George wrote: > The Wanderer (12019-10-31): > > IMO, the correct behavior should indeed be the same for lists as for > > private mail: reply to the source from which you received the > > message. > > ... and everybody who got it too. > > For example,

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > Do you also have "ignore list-post:" in your muttrc ? Of course not. What a strange question: the ignore directive is for display, not for controlling the recipients. In case you confused it with ignore_list_reply_to, look at the comment on its side: "Press L

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/11/19 3:10 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Possible with Mutt: > > send-hook . "unmy_hdr Reply-To:" send-hook > ~cdebian-u...@lists.debian.org my_hdr "Reply-To: > debian-user@lists.debian.org" Do you also have "ignore list-post:" in your muttrc

Re: KISS gpg

The Wanderer (12019-10-31): > ...can you clarify what you mean by this term? The definition of > "exigent" which I know of ("in need of immediate, urgent response, such > that there is not time to delay", roughly speaking), and the one I find > in gcide, doesn't seem to fit this context at all;

Re: KISS gpg

deloptes (12019-10-31): > again the homedir option is for the agent and not for gpg - and you should > setup your environment properly Again, without perfect control and feedback, this is not acceptable. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

The Wanderer (12019-10-31): > IMO, the correct behavior should indeed be the same for lists as for > private mail: reply to the source from which you received the message. ... and everybody who got it too. For example, if I reply to: # From: Colleague # To: Me # Cc: Boss it should be: # From:

Re: KISS gpg

On 2019-10-31 at 12:01, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> I'm not manually adding any reply-to header, no-one else has a >> problem with "List-Post:" header > > I will not discuss this further if your solution requires a > different command for lists and

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > That would have worked with gpg < 2.1. With >= 2.1, it will ignore the > homedir option and connect to an agent. Or re-start an agent, with or > without the homedir option. I do not know what gpg does exactly, it does > not tell me. For handling something as precious as a

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > No, if you have the file S.gpg-agent in the alternate --homedir with the > right settings that point somewhere else for the socket, you can check > it's existence before and after invoking with --homedir Maybe. This is too uncertain and hackish, I do not want to

Re: KISS gpg

Greg Wooledge wrote: > Huh.  There's that "dash space dash dash" pattern again, from a completely > different person this time. > > Is the mailing list software mangling people's posts (lines that begin > with dash dash get an extra dash space prepended), or is there some > common mail user

Re: KISS gpg

Erwan David wrote: > The question was *which* product can be used. I am not aware of such that runs under linux and I do not remember the time I used pgp - but it was on company windows pc between 2002 - 2007. So this topic is pointless - IMO there is no such tool for linux. I also do not

Re: KISS gpg

On 1/11/19 2:51 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> reply-list works perfectly this end > > reply-list requires paying attention to whether it is a list or a > private e-mail. That would be acceptable, but since there is a solution > that does not require that extra

Reply-default etiquette (was Re: KISS gpg)

On 2019-10-31 at 11:36, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > >> btw doesn't "reply list" work for you? I get all list messages >> okay. > > If you do not want to be on copy, use the standard reply-to header > to specify it, just like me. Senders should not be expected to

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > Emails of the list have a header > > List-Post: > > There should be no need for an extra reply-to header. Already replied to this: a solution whose UI treats lists and individual mails differently is optimal. Regards,

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/11/19 2:36 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> btw doesn't "reply list" work for you? I get all list messages >> okay. > > If you do not want to be on copy, use the standard reply-to header > to specify it, just

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > reply-list works perfectly this end reply-list requires paying attention to whether it is a list or a private e-mail. That would be acceptable, but since there is a solution that does not require that extra attention, an inferior solution should not be chosen. >

Re: KISS gpg

On 1/11/19 2:34 am, Nicolas George wrote: > At the very least, to trust gpg with its agent, I would require options > to explicitly set the path of the agent's socket and to print the path > of the socket that was used. reply-list works perfectly this end, forget what's in the headers for

Re: KISS gpg

On qui, 31 out 2019, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will have what you need. Huh. There's that "dash space

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > btw doesn't "reply list" work for you? I get all list messages okay. If you do not want to be on copy, use the standard reply-to header to specify it, just like me. Senders should not be expected to do something special for normal answers, correct behaviour

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > Okay, well if something is constantly using gpg, then it will restart > as you use it by gpg. I would stop it and see that it is stopped, > then try with --homedir it may restart the agent, but it /might/ > be for the new --homedir area. I know all that.

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/11/19 2:26 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> So, perhaps the agent is restarted by systemd -- perhaps you can >> disable it using systemctl commands to stop it restarting ... >> then the agent might be better in

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/11/19 2:26 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> So, perhaps the agent is restarted by systemd -- perhaps you can >> disable it using systemctl commands to stop it restarting ... >> then the agent might be better in

Re: KISS gpg

On 31/10/2019 15:22, The Wanderer wrote: On 2019-10-31 at 11:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will have

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > So, perhaps the agent is restarted by systemd -- perhaps you can > disable it using systemctl commands to stop it restarting ... then > the agent might be better in /your/ control? No, the agent is not restarted by systemd, it is restarted by gpg itself.

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/11/19 2:22 am, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2019-10-31 at 11:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan >> wrote: >> >>> If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the - >>> --homedir

Re: KISS gpg

The Wanderer (12019-10-31): > FWIW, I don't see that pattern in my local copy of the message you're > replying to; on my end, the line begins with '--homedir', sans quotes. Yet, is it there: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/10/msg01136.html Regards, -- Nicolas George

Re: KISS gpg

On 2019-10-31 at 11:22, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2019-10-31 at 11:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> >>> If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the >>> - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think

Re: KISS gpg

> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > >> If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the > >> - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will > >> have what you need. > FWIW, I don't see that pattern in my local copy of the

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 1/11/19 2:21 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): >> If I understand correctly, the agent is getting in your way. >> >> Killing the agent /might/ be your answer: > > Unfortunately no: using the agent is mandatory

Re: KISS gpg

On 2019-10-31 at 11:18, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > >> If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the >> - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will >> have what you need. > > Huh. There's

Re: KISS gpg

Greg Wooledge (12019-10-31): > Huh. There's that "dash space dash dash" pattern again, from a completely > different person this time. > > Is the mailing list software mangling people's posts (lines that begin > with dash dash get an extra dash space prepended), or is there some > common mail

Re: KISS gpg

Andrew McGlashan (12019-11-01): > If I understand correctly, the agent is getting in your way. > > Killing the agent /might/ be your answer: Unfortunately no: using the agent is mandatory since 2.1: if I kill the agent, it comes back. > I think your private key has a pass phrase, but the agent

Re: KISS gpg

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:12:54AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > If you kill all agents to stop them interfering, then use the > - --homedir option of gpg with a copy of your files, I think you will > have what you need. Huh. There's that "dash space dash dash" pattern again, from a

Re: KISS gpg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 31/10/19 5:58 am, Nicolas George wrote: > Is there somewhere in Debian a KISS version of GnuPG or something > compatible? > > The current default version of GnuPG, since 2015, necessarily uses > a client-server agent to access the private

Re: KISS gpg

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:35:41PM CET, deloptes said: > Nicolas George wrote: > > > I can stop replying to you. But I can also hope that somebody will have > > a relevant answer. > > > > Sorry to not have been awed by gratefulness at your irrelevant answer. > > I already said you can use

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > I can stop replying to you. But I can also hope that somebody will have > a relevant answer. > > Sorry to not have been awed by gratefulness at your irrelevant answer. I already said you can use another product.

Re: KISS gpg

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:14:26PM CET, Nicolas George said: > Erwan David (12019-10-31): > > Replace gpg by openpgp client without agent in the question, do you > > understand ? Because gpg agent is linked to a session and you mlay > > want to use oipenpgp encryption outside any session (eg for

Re: KISS gpg

Erwan David (12019-10-31): > Replace gpg by openpgp client without agent in the question, do you > understand ? Because gpg agent is linked to a session and you mlay > want to use oipenpgp encryption outside any session (eg for backups) This is exactly what I am looking for, thanks. Can you

Re: KISS gpg

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 03:01:51PM CET, deloptes said: > Nicolas George wrote: > > > Which is exactly the question I asked. Again: if you do not understand > > the question and cannot give a relevant answer… > > Look, there is no answer for your dreams. Better wake up! Replace gpg by openpgp

Re: KISS gpg

deloptes (12019-10-31): > You can close the topic! I can stop replying to you. But I can also hope that somebody will have a relevant answer. Sorry to not have been awed by gratefulness at your irrelevant answer. -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > Which is exactly the question I asked. Again: if you do not understand > the question and cannot give a relevant answer… Look, there is no answer for your dreams. Better wake up! You can not access the private keys without agent. The agent is _part_ of gnupg. This is for

Re: KISS gpg

deloptes (12019-10-31): > There is a reason for the agent. If you want gpg without an agent use > another product. Which is exactly the question I asked. Again: if you do not understand the question and cannot give a relevant answer… -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > That would be the idea. And for that, I need a KISS gpg, because current > gpg does not honor the homedir setting for private keys, because it uses > the agent instead. This is exactly the problem. There is a reason for the agent. If you want gpg without an

Re: KISS gpg

somewhere in ~/.gnupg) if you want to "export" it. Once you've done > that, you can put it in "another-dir" with a similar structure and then > use > > gpg --homedir ../another-dir --change-passphrase > > to change its passphrase. That would be the idea

Re: KISS gpg

> The current default version of GnuPG, since 2015, necessarily uses a > client-server agent to access the private keys. While it is convenient > and secure for everyday use, but for some tasks, the efforts it makes to > protect my files from myself prevent me from doing the tasks I want. Not

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > If you do not understand the question, you can let somebody else answer. > That saves your time and mine. if you do not understand the answer read twice ;-) will save you time in future and mine too

Re: KISS gpg

deloptes (12019-10-30): > the agent was always there - better do a proper setup and btw. what does it > have to do with your files > ??? If you do not understand the question, you can let somebody else answer. That saves your time and mine. Regards, -- Nicolas George signature.asc

Re: KISS gpg

Nicolas George wrote: > Is there somewhere in Debian a KISS version of GnuPG or something > compatible? > > The current default version of GnuPG, since 2015, necessarily uses a > client-server agent to access the private keys. While it is convenient > and secure for everyday use, but for some

KISS gpg

Hi. Is there somewhere in Debian a KISS version of GnuPG or something compatible? The current default version of GnuPG, since 2015, necessarily uses a client-server agent to access the private keys. While it is convenient and secure for everyday use, but for some tasks, the efforts it makes to