Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:29 +0100, Rudolf Künzli wrote: > > Inbox, I get two copies of my reply back into my Inbox. > >  > > Something to check with your mail server/provider. Mine one is gmail > and works the way I defined... Gmail stores a copy of every message you send in its Sent Mail folder

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:45 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > PS: Btw. Ubuntu claims >     Replying to digest emails breaks the threading >     http://community.ubuntu.com/contribute/support/mailinglists/ >     but actually it's solvable by using MIME Digest >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 19.45 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers, > > sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list? > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 19.45 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers, > > sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list? > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 19:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > Yes, it's just the list. I can't see no difference in the headers, > sorry. Where do I change the settings, if it's the list? https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list At the bottom there's "Unsubscribe or edit options".

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.29 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > ... twice in inbox might come from those who reply to YOU and to the > > > LIST. I don't. Do you see this here twice ? > > > > No, yours and other's messages only comes one. But the one I'm writing > > now will come twice into my

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:44:52 +, Pete Biggs wrote: >> >> This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL >> you'd receive my answer twice ... >> > >Not necessarily.  There is a list option to prevent getting double >emails when you are directly sent a copy. With the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL you'd > receive my answer twice ... > Not necessarily.  There is a list option to prevent getting double emails when you are directly sent a copy. P. ___ evolution-list mailing

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:29 +0100, Tom wrote: > This here was sent TO me and CCed to the list. If I'd REPLY TO ALL > you'd receive my answer twice ... The OP mentioned: On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:22:58 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: >I get none in sent, and two in Inbox. It's not the known

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 18:22 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.17 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 17:41 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > ... twice in inbox might come from those who reply to YOU and to the > > LIST. I don't. Do you see this here twice ? > > No, yours and other's messages only comes one. But the one I'm writing > now will come twice into my Inbox. > Is it just this list or is it all emails? If it's just this

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 18:26 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.22 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > > må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.53 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > > > > > > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > > It saved twice

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.22 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.53 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > > > > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 17.53 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in > > > Inbox. > > > > > > Rudolf > > > > Ah, so that's why it's

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 18.17 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 17:41 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in Inbox. > > > > > > Rudolf > > > > Ah, so that's why it's saved twice

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 17:41 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in Inbox. > > > > Rudolf > > Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution? ... twice in inbox might come from

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:41 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > It saved twice in Inbox? > > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in > > Inbox. > > > > Rudolf > > Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution?  > > Stig > But I just get one copy

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> It saved twice in Inbox? > My email provider stores the replies in Sent and additionally in Inbox. > > Rudolf Ah, so that's why it's saved twice in my Inbox here in Evolution? Stig ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 17:29 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 16.23 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > It's probably best to start a new topic for unrelated questions - > > nobody will ever find this in amongst all those GPG emails. > > > Is your service provider also

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 16.23 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > It's probably best to start a new topic for unrelated questions - > nobody will ever find this in amongst all those GPG emails. > Is your service provider also saving sent copies? > > P. Oh, it probably is. In sent folder. Here I

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

It's probably best to start a new topic for unrelated questions - nobody will ever find this in amongst all those GPG emails. > Another thing I've noticed, is that I get two copies of sent letters > (replies) to the folder I'm sending from. It's enough with one copy, and > I don't understand why

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> As the "Content-Type:" says, that's the PGP encrypted attachment. > > I don't know why there are two .dat files. > > If you want, forward the mail (as an attachment) to me and I'll have a > look at it. But it won't be immediately. > > P. Another thing I've noticed, is that I get two copies

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 14.10 (+0100) skreiv Ralf Mardorf: > I only mentioned a few pitfalls/falsities about what signing, > encryption, TOR etc. could provide and what not and why to care about > pitfalls. A discussion about motives is irrelevant. I agree. Thank you, Sir. Your messages are

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 14:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > But I DO agree with the facts you are presenting.  That's no reason to repeat his entire message just to add a couple of lines of comment. poc ___ evolution-list mailing list

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

I only mentioned a few pitfalls/falsities about what signing, encryption, TOR etc. could provide and what not and why to care about pitfalls. A discussion about motives is irrelevant. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 03.58 (+0100) skreiv 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

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 12.36 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > I know. Like Trump and the debate about Apple, universal back-doors, > > and > > the rest of Pentagon et al going on and on about that encryption > > equals > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:36 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > I know. Like Trump and the debate about Apple, universal back- > > doors, > > and > > the rest of Pentagon et al going on and on about that encryption > > equals > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > I know. Like Trump and the debate about Apple, universal back-doors, > and > the rest of Pentagon et al going on and on about that encryption > equals > crime. I'm in Scandinavia. And I hope we don't have to become an > American state

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 11:50 + schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:22 +, Pete Biggs wrote: (...) > > > > Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email > > Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when > > they issue

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 22. 02. 2016 klokka 03.58 (+0100) skreiv 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

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:22 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > > the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends > > certificates. > > Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email > Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when > they

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > the "Microsoft Infrastructure" uses S/MIME by default, which sends > certificates. Yes - S/MIME works by a "Trusted Third Party" issuing signed Email Certificates. The only verification done by someone like Comodo when they issue personal certificates is that the certificate is sent to the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

> > 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

> > 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

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 only the parts of the message you are commenting on, and not keep an ever-increasing

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 21. 02. 2016 klokka 00.34 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 23:49 +0100, Rudolf Künzli wrote: > > > My key weren't confirmed in my sent messages before I trusted my > > own > > > key. So I guess that's what other people that trust me have to do > > > too. > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 23.49 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 23:49 +0100, Rudolf Künzli wrote: > > My key weren't confirmed in my sent messages before I trusted my > own > > key. So I guess that's what other people that trust me have to do > > too.  > > IMHO your public key should be attached/sent with your signature. In > that case I

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.55 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.41 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016,

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 21.41 (+0100) skreiv Rudolf Künzli: > On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 21:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.59 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:47 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:47 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:47 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > > to. den 11. 02.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:31 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > What about this, then?

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > What about this, then?

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 20. 02. 2016 klokka 19.03 (+0100) skreiv Tom: > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's always > > > > two .dat-files

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 16:56 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's always > > > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment? > > > > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 16:56 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's > > > always > > > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment? > > > > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 18.39 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's always > > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment? > > > > --=-FBjrxYQ2/8R5tscH+TLU > > Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted; name="dat.asc"

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.18 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > Yes of course. I understand that. I'm just curious what those dat-files > > are. The sender didn't intentionally attach those files. Are they > > generated by Evolution? He sent one encrypted letter (file.gpg) as an > > attachment,

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> There are a lot of info there, and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking > for. Both the attachments says 'ordinary text document' (translated from > Norwegian), and the third says PGP/Mime encrypted.  > So they are something that was attached before it was received and nothing to do with

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.18 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > Yes of course. I understand that. I'm just curious what those dat-files > > are. The sender didn't intentionally attach those files. Are they > > generated by Evolution? He sent one encrypted letter (file.gpg) as an > > attachment,

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 20:28 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > I'm just curious what the DAT-files are, that are created when I send > and receive attachments? I'd be very surprised if Evolution suddenly created .dat files.  I've only seen "winmail.dat" files created by Microsoft Exchange

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> Thank you! I tried to open them, by the way, in gedit, but they were > empty. I'm just worried because I downloaded them. I really hope they're > not doing my computer any harm. The sender doesn't understand it either. > I'll look into it. > The bottom line is that malware on Linux is quite

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > There are a lot of info there, and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking > > for. Both the attachments says 'ordinary text document' (translated from > > Norwegian), and the third says PGP/Mime encrypted. > > > > So they are

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 10.09 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > OK, so I ran the file command, file attachment.dat, and got this > > message: 'very short file (no magic)'. No 'strange' number or strings or > > anything! Extremely educational answers from you, even though it's 'far > > from

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:17:01 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: >The files aren't dangerous in any way? I don't think so, but consider to use an online virus scanner. IMO it's dangerous, if a group of people feels secure using gpg, but having misconceptions about how it works. Once you figured out

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.45 (+0100) skreiv Andre Klapper: > On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 20:28 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > I'm just curious what the DAT-files are, that are created when I send > > and receive attachments? > > I'd be very surprised if Evolution suddenly created .dat files.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > OK, so I ran the file command, file attachment.dat, and got this > message: 'very short file (no magic)'. No 'strange' number or strings or > anything! Extremely educational answers from you, even though it's 'far > from Evolution'. Or is it. So 'no magic', 'ey?  The "magic" refers to the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > Using the Ctr+U command, I got this info: > > --=-cAzVArTuBQDjGRJ48pLs > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF" > > > --=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > The other info I get, but these two must

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 10:09 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > > > OK, so I ran the file command, file attachment.dat, and got this > > message: 'very short file (no magic)'. No 'strange' number or > > strings or > > anything! Extremely educational answers from you, even though it's > > 'far > > from

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > There are a lot of info there, and I'm not quite sure what I'm looking > > for. Both the attachments says 'ordinary text document' (translated from > > Norwegian), and the third says PGP/Mime encrypted. > > > > So they are

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

to. den 11. 02. 2016 klokka 10.12 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > Using the Ctr+U command, I got this info: > > > > --=-cAzVArTuBQDjGRJ48pLs > > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF" > > > > > > --=-xXDXkoaX8HQyph0FZ2XF > > Content-Type: text/plain > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> What about this, then? Does this say anything about why there's always > two .dat-files attached together with the encrypted attachment? > > --=-FBjrxYQ2/8R5tscH+TLU > Content-Type: application/pgp-encrypted; name="dat.asc" > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="dat.asc" >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

on. den 10. 02. 2016 klokka 20.02 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > må. den 08. 02. 2016 klokka 09.51 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > > > > > It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256, > > > Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think?

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 08. 02. 2016 klokka 09.51 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > > It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256, > > Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think? > > No it's not, your messages are signed using a SHA256 digest. At the >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Wed, 2016-02-10 at 20:28 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > I have yet another "stupid" question to ask. I'm just curious what > > the > > DAT-files are, that are created when I send and receive > > attachments? Not > > everyone I know use Evolution. But most are encrypting their > > messages

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

må. den 08. 02. 2016 klokka 09.51 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > > It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256, > > Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think? > > No it's not, your messages are signed using a SHA256 digest. At the >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 09:48 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > It puzzles me though, that after converting from SHA-1 to SHA-256, > Evolution still uses SHA-1. What can be the reason for that, you think? Hi, why do you think that, please? Looking into message headers (of the message I

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 21.58 (+) skreiv Pete Biggs: > > > > > > People tell me that they can't open the attachment (my signature comes > > attached to my mails). I know it's not an Evo problem, but what advice > > can I give them? > > > You don't open the attachment - the PGP

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that > > value > > > > under 'security' below my key ID too? This is my last question. > > > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see any > > sign of it. Here, after sending it, it says "valid signature". When I > > sing a letter

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 13:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see > > > any > > > sign of it.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 12.21 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 13:14 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 11.56 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > > > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > People tell me

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that > value > > > under 'security' below my key ID too? This is my last question.  > >  > > The key ID is the 8-character value that appears when you run "gpg > -- > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 08:27 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > People tell me my letters aren't sign, or at least they can't see any > sign of it. Here, after sending it, it says "valid signature". When I > sing a letter in the terminal, it begins with a Hash: SHA256 and ends > with END PGP

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

> > > People tell me that they can't open the attachment (my signature comes > attached to my mails). I know it's not an Evo problem, but what advice > can I give them?  > You don't open the attachment - the PGP signature is meaningless without the message it's attached to: the point of the

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that > > > value > > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick O'Callaghan: > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > My key is set to the SHA value of 256. Should also choose that > > value > > > > under 'security' below my key ID too? This is my last question. > > > > >

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

Tom wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > People tell me that they can't open the attachment (my signature > > comes > > attached to my mails). I know it's not an Evo problem, but what > > advice > > can I give them?  > > First one (too?) simple

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 23:35 +0100, Tom wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 07.02.2016, 19:57 +0100 schrieb Stig Roar Wangberg: > > su. den 07. 02. 2016 klokka 13.31 (+) skreiv Patrick > > O'Callaghan: > > > On Sun, 2016-02-07 at 14:12 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > > > My key is set to the SHA

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 10.31 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > > fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams: > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > > It seems

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

la. den 06. 02. 2016 klokka 09.49 (+0100) skreiv Stig Roar Wangberg: > fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams: > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > > It seems like I manage to send signed emails. Not sure about he > > > encryption yet.

Re: [Evolution] Evolution/GPG

fr. den 05. 02. 2016 klokka 09.27 (-0500) skreiv Adam Tauno Williams: > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 15:06 +0100, Stig Roar Wangberg wrote: > > It seems like I manage to send signed emails. Not sure about he > > encryption yet. But it seems like I cannot encrypt and sign at the > > same time. I get an

  1   2   >