Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Milan Crha
On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:05 +0100, Tom wrote: > Remark, that most of these mails are > sent via Microsoft Infrastructure. Hi, the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends certificates. It's different from PGP, which is just web of trust. Did you ever heard of the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:58:38 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:22:02 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: >>I only encrypt to people I trust IF the message requires it. > >Here we face another issue. If you don't always encrypt messages, then >a judge could assume that the encrypted

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:22:02 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: >I only encrypt to people I trust IF the message requires it. Here we face another issue. If you don't always encrypt messages, then a judge could assume that the encrypted email are related to a crime. In some countries, IIRC e.g.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Stig Roar Wangberg
su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 16.38 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > This is not the way it's supposed to work. If I don't check the > > > public > > > key is trusted, why should I believe a message signed with it? > > > Simply > > > picking up the key with the message is tantamount to doing

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Stig Roar Wangberg
> thomas@ga-78:~$ gpg --recv-keys 7C174863 > gpg: Schlüssel 7C174863 von hkp-Server keys.gnupg.net anfordern > gpg: /home/thomas/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trust-db erzeugt > gpg: Schlüssel 7C174863: Öffentlicher Schlüssel "Stig Roar Wangberg > " importiert > gpg: Anzahl insgesamt

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Roy W. Reese
El 2016-02-21 18:49, Ralf Mardorf escribió: On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as > valid for further mails ? You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that the signature belongs to him.  

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 16:48 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as > > valid for further mails ? > You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that > the signature belongs to him.  Which is not advisable if you don't >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Biggs
> > Just for the files: What more would I do to see Stig's signature as > valid for further mails ? You would need to sign it to say that you verify that you know that the signature belongs to him.  Which is not advisable if you don't know that for certain - since it creates faults in the web

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Biggs
> > This is not the way it's supposed to work. If I don't check the > > public > > key is trusted, why should I believe a message signed with it? > > Simply > > picking up the key with the message is tantamount to doing nothing. > > I > > must either know the key beforehand (i.e. I have it in my

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Tom
Am Sonntag, den 21.02.2016, 12:37 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.54 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > > On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 01:47 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > And thanks, by the way, for your answers and help. I've learned a lot > > > since I

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Tom
Am Sonntag, den 21.02.2016, 01:42 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: (...) > > > > > > Signature exists but the public key however is > > > > > > needed/required. > > > > > > or > > > > > > gpg: Signature at the Sa 20 Feb 2016 16:56:34 CET with RSA key, > > > > > > ID > > > > > > 7C174863, is

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Tom
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 21:59 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: (...) > > > > > > -- > > > Rudolf Künzli - rudolf.kunzli@gmail.comSkype: rudolf.kunzli > > > > > > Your signature looks like this: > > > > gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1 > > gpg: Signature made la. 20. feb. 2016 kl.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Tom
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 21:14 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: (...) > > > > > > > > > > Everything is working just fine now! I'm very pleased with Evolution. > > > > > But what does it mean when it says that the signature is valid, but > > > > > cannot confirm the sender (I don't know the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Tom
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 20:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: (...) > > > > > > Everything is working just fine now! I'm very pleased with > > > > > > Evolution. > > > > > > But what does it mean when it says that the signature is valid, but > > > > > > cannot confirm the sender (I don't

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

2016-02-21 Thread Stig Roar Wangberg
su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.54 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 01:47 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > And thanks, by the way, for your answers and help. I've learned a lot > > since I got here. > > No problem. > > Note that it's also good practice to quote