On 04.02.2015 19:07, Alexander Buchner wrote:
On 04.02.2015 19:00, Bob Williams wrote:
I'd be surprised if Ubuntu gives you GnuPG 1.4. What is the output of
gpg --version?
I have a Ubuntu 14.10 system:
@@@:~$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.16
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06.02.15 23:30, Doug Barton wrote:
[...]
By that same token, what compelling use case does 2.0.x provide
that 1.4.x does not? The gpg-agent is interesting, and potentially
useful for heavy command line PGP users; but for Enigmail's
purposes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07.02.15 00:24, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/6/15 3:05 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
By that same token, what compelling use case does 2.0.x provide
that 1.4.x does not?
Werner has several times made various noises about stopping work
on 1.4, as
You're contradicting decades of experience with users being dragged
kicking and screaming to upgrade to new versions of things, long
after the one they're using is EOL. How many requests for help do we
get on gnupg-users related to prehistoric versions of PGP, for
example?
Not many anymore.
By that same token, what compelling use case does 2.0.x provide that
1.4.x does not?
Werner has several times made various noises about stopping work on 1.4,
as for a very long time he's been operating on a paper-thin budget of
time and resources. If the workload on 2.1 increases 1.4 won't
On 2/5/15 11:35 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 11:01 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
The question is not so much the effort - you won't get a figure
from me. The main concern is code complexity, which makes things
hard to read, understand, develop,
On 2/6/15 3:58 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
... except that the support for GnuPG 2.0.x is already in Enigmail.
You're misunderstanding who I'm talking about when I say we're caught
flat-footed. I don't mean us-the-developers. I mean us-the-community.
If 1.4 gets EOLed there's going to be a
... except that the support for GnuPG 2.0.x is already in Enigmail.
You're misunderstanding who I'm talking about when I say we're caught
flat-footed. I don't mean us-the-developers. I mean us-the-community.
If 1.4 gets EOLed there's going to be a mad rush of people trying to
upgrade, and
On 2/6/15 3:05 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
By that same token, what compelling use case does 2.0.x provide that
1.4.x does not?
Werner has several times made various noises about stopping work on 1.4,
as for a very long time he's been operating on a paper-thin budget of
time and resources. If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06.02.15 00:33, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version
of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support
altogether. :)
I'd formulate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 11:01 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
The question is not so much the effort - you won't get a figure
from me. The main concern is code complexity, which makes things
hard to read, understand,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05.02.15 16:46, Philip Jackson wrote:
On 04/02/15 18:13, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
My plan is as follows: * Enigmail 1.8.x will still support GnuPG
1.4.x. However, if Enigmail detects GnuPG 1.4.x, a message will
be displayed saying that GnuPG
On 05/02/15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are shipping
2.x
by default, removing 1.x support is premature. I should add that I'm using
that
transition as a bellwether of sorts, as I *think* that seeing this transition
will also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
What you're proposing will create a whole new set of support
problems, starting with the return of You must use the packaged
version! on Linux, and similar platforms.
No, this requirement will not start
On 2/5/15 1:03 PM, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
On 05.02.15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote:
What you're proposing will create a whole new set of support
problems, starting with the return of You must use the packaged
version! on Linux, and similar platforms.
No, this requirement will not start the
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are
shipping 2.x by default, removing 1.x support is premature.
This would be a problem if the OSes that ship Enigmail had no way to
make GnuPG 2 a dependency. Virtually all of them do, so I don't see the
problem.
I get the
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work with/work around that it
justifies taking on these burdens now, rather than some time down
the road when more people have already transitioned?
Ah, the broccoli argument.
I hate
On 2/5/15 3:08 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work with/work around that it
justifies taking on these burdens now, rather than some time down
the road when more people have already transitioned?
If the wizard takes users to 2.x then I cannot see an issue. With old equipment
can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
Ian
On 06/02/15 10:08, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
will create _some_ support burden. Is the code to support 1.x in
Enigmail really *that* difficult to work
On 2/5/15 3:03 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are
shipping 2.x by default, removing 1.x support is premature.
This would be a problem if the OSes that ship Enigmail had no way to
make GnuPG 2 a dependency. Virtually all of them do,
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support altogether. :)
___
enigmail-users mailing list
enigmail-users@enigmail.net
Thanks Doug,
Ian
On 06/02/15 10:33, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/5/15 3:26 PM, Ian Mann wrote:
With old equipment can the user remain on 1.x with an old version of enigma?
No, that's the point of this exercise, to remove 1.x support altogether. :)
Would it be worthwhile having enigmail pass straight to GnuPG 2.1 ?
No.
GnuPG 2.1 seems like it should be a minor revision (after all, it’s just a .1
increment), but quite a lot has changed: the addition of ECC, the new keybox
format, changing how supporting programs work, and more. Like any
On 05/02/2015 6:55 am, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
On 04.02.15 20:16, Bob Henson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer
On 04/02/2015 8:15 pm, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 11:16 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it
On 04/02/2015 19:20, Andreas Hirsch wrote:
Bob Henson schrieb am 2015-02-04 um 20:16:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2/4/2015 12:13, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
So I have gone into my Enigmail preferences and I've set the override
option
On 2/4/15 11:01 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
The question is not so much the effort - you won't get a figure from me.
The main concern is code complexity, which makes things hard to read,
understand, develop, improve or fix.
Yes, I get that. :) But without some sort of quantification it's
I hope it is directly from Enigmail as I don't feel confident to install GnuPG
2.x it separately on Ubuntu.
Ian
On 05/02/15 04:13, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Reasons:
* GnuPG
On 04.02.2015 20:07, Alexander Buchner wrote:
On 04.02.2015 19:00, Bob Williams wrote:
I'd be surprised if Ubuntu gives you GnuPG 1.4. What is the output of
gpg --version?
I have a Ubuntu 14.10 system:
@@@:~$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.16
...
Ubuntu 14.10 will expire soon anyway.
Hi Patrick,
Patrick Brunschwig schrieb am 2015-02-04 um 18:13:
Please let me know if this would cause major issues that I'm not aware of.
In the past, I tried twice to switch to GnuPG 2.x (in case of setting up
a new pc) and wasn't able to use my existing private key anymore.
Andreas
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/15 18:53, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Well, that does surprise me. I can understand why you'd prefer
an Enigmail wizard to guide you through the upgrade.
It's not necessary. Debian (and by extension Ubuntu) package
Enigmail; thus, if you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 19:58, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
This surprises me. GnuPG 2.x understands and keeps the same formats
of files and keys/keyrings.
Correction: 2.0.x
2.1.x is another story...
Ludwig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
There may be a few problems with Windows users only being able to get
GnuPG 2.x as part of GPG4Win - that might put many people
Bob Henson schrieb am 2015-02-04 um 20:16:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it won't allow the installation
of GnuPG
Well, that does surprise me. I can understand why you'd prefer an
Enigmail wizard to guide you through the upgrade.
It's not necessary. Debian (and by extension Ubuntu) package Enigmail;
thus, if you install a new version of Enigmail through the Debian (or
Ubuntu) package installation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 19:53, Andreas Hirsch wrote:
In the past, I tried twice to switch to GnuPG 2.x (in case of
setting up a new pc) and wasn't able to use my existing private key
anymore.
This surprises me. GnuPG 2.x understands and keeps the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 20:08, Bob Henson wrote:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we
should think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
There may be a few problems with
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it won't allow the installation
of GnuPG without Kleopatra too and Kleopatra is very,
Ludwig,
That worked after putting in the Path,
Thank you
Ian
On 05/02/15 07:01, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
On 04.02.15 20:36, Ian Mann wrote:
OK looks like I have GnuPG 2.0.22 on the system now.
Do I have to tell enigmail to use that now? If so how do I manage
that?
It may be
bin_uRbgS43DJ.bin
Description: PGP/MIME version identification
encrypted.asc
Description: OpenPGP encrypted message
___
enigmail-users mailing list
enigmail-users@enigmail.net
To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here:
gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.16
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Home: ~/.gnupg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 20:36, Ian Mann wrote:
OK looks like I have GnuPG 2.0.22 on the system now.
Do I have to tell enigmail to use that now? If so how do I manage
that?
It may be sufficient to restart Thunderbird, but I'm not sure.
If not: You first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 04-02-2015 a las 15:07, Alexander Buchner escibió:
On 04.02.2015 19:00, Bob Williams wrote:
I'd be surprised if Ubuntu gives you GnuPG 1.4. What is the
output of
gpg --version?
I have a Ubuntu 14.10 system:
@@@:~$ gpg --version gpg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/15 17:43, Ian Mann wrote:
I hope it is directly from Enigmail as I don't feel confident to
install GnuPG 2.x it separately on Ubuntu.
Ian
I'd be surprised if Ubuntu gives you GnuPG 1.4. What is the output of
gpg --version?
- --
Bob
Yes, I don't know much about tinkering with the system. I just want to use the
applications.
For me to upgrade GnuPG to 2.x by myself would be stressful, I would be sure to
stuff it up Bob.
On 05/02/15 05:26, Bob Williams wrote:
On 04/02/15 18:18, Ian Mann wrote:
On 05/02/15 05:00, Bob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 20:02, Andreas Hirsch wrote:
If I remember correctly, there comes a new instance of handling
the passthrase instead of Enigmail and so my passthrase was not
recognized.
Did your passphrase contain special characters like accent or
Do I have to uninstall 1.4?
Nope. They coexist beautifully.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
enigmail-users mailing list
enigmail-users@enigmail.net
To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here:
On 04/02/2015 7:27 pm, Samir Nassar wrote:
On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 07:16:26 PM Bob Henson wrote:
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it won't allow the installation
of GnuPG without Kleopatra too and Kleopatra is very, very flaky under
Windows 64 bit. I think before you drop
On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 05:09:24 PM Faramir wrote:
If I'm not wrong, gpg 1.4.16 had a security flaw so it's strange
ubuntu has not upgraded to 1.4.17 or 1.4.18. But that flaw may have
been too specific to be considered exploitable... it was something
about denial of service.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/15 18:18, Ian Mann wrote:
On 05/02/15 05:00, Bob Williams wrote:
On 04/02/15 17:43, Ian Mann wrote:
I hope it is directly from Enigmail as I don't feel confident
to install GnuPG 2.x it separately on Ubuntu.
Ian
I'd be surprised if
Thanks for that information Lars,
Ian
On 05/02/15 05:46, Lars Noodén wrote:
On 04.02.2015 20:07, Alexander Buchner wrote:
On 04.02.2015 19:00, Bob Williams wrote:
I'd be surprised if Ubuntu gives you GnuPG 1.4. What is the output of
gpg --version?
I have a Ubuntu 14.10 system:
@@@:~$ gpg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 20:00, Ian Mann wrote:
Do I have to uninstall 1.4?
No. 2.0.x can peacefully coexist with a 1.4.x installation.
Ludwig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU0mz9AAoJEDrb+m0Aoeb+UhkP/R4QirRetOY8IpCtSkkB/Asq
OK looks like I have GnuPG 2.0.22 on the system now.
Do I have to tell enigmail to use that now? If so how do I manage that?
Ian
gpg2 --version
gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.22
libgcrypt 1.5.3
Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
On 04/02/2015 7:27 pm, Samir Nassar wrote:
pre wrap
On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 07:16:26 PM Bob Henson wrote:
/preblockquote type=citepre wrap
Hmm - just tried the GPG4Win installer - it won't allow the installation
of GnuPG without Kleopatra too and Kleopatra is very, very flaky under
On Wed 2015-02-04 12:13:18 -0500, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we should
think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Reasons:
* GnuPG 2.0 was released in November 2006; it has proven for a long
time to be stable.
* While GnuPG 1.4
Not all Debian/Ubuntu users install Enigmail as a package, now that it
no longer contains machine-dependent code.
No, but it *is* what we recommend.
If you get your Thunderbird from your distribution (or ports tree, for
the BSDs), then please also get Enigmail from the same place.
Downloading
On 2/4/15 10:53 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Well, that does surprise me. I can understand why you'd prefer an
Enigmail wizard to guide you through the upgrade.
It's not necessary. Debian (and by extension Ubuntu) package Enigmail;
thus, if you install a new version of Enigmail through the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 04-02-2015 a las 16:16, Ludwig Hügelschäfer escibió:
...
You'll need gpg4win, as it brings the required (and fully windows
integrated) pinentry.
gpg4win 2.23 works well on Win7 64 bit.
I think it's safe to don't install Clawsmail and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 04-02-2015 a las 16:08, Bob Henson escibió:
On 04/02/2015 5:13 pm, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we
should think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
There may be a few problems
Yes, I would not have been able to do it without the help of you folk.
Ian
On 05/02/15 07:18, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 10:53 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Well, that does surprise me. I can understand why you'd prefer an
Enigmail wizard to guide you through the upgrade.
It's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04.02.15 21:21, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 9:13 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we
should think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Reasons: * GnuPG 2.0 was released in
On 2/4/15 1:21 PM, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
On 04.02.15 21:21, Doug Barton wrote:
On 2/4/15 9:13 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
We recently discussed in (a part of) the Enigmail team that we
should think about giving up support for GnuPG 1.4.x.
Reasons: * GnuPG 2.0 was released in November
On Wed 2015-02-04 17:28:48 -0500, Doug Barton wrote:
Nope, I understood the timeline perfectly. :) There are still a lot of
Linux distros that use 1.x by default, and that is not going to change
any time in the next several years.
fwiw, in debian, the GnuPG maintainer team has been
64 matches
Mail list logo
