On 2018-05-22 at 19:35 -0700, Craig P Hicks wrote:
> "A Solution for Sending Messages Safely from EFAIL-safe Senders to
> EFAIL-unsafe Receivers"
>
> https://github.com/craigphicks/efail-safe-send-to-insec-recv/wiki
There's an existing semi-standard for trying to improve email security
by moving
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 22 May 2018 at 3:34:40 AM, in
, Mirimir wrote:-
> So is there anything that gpg v2.2 won't decrypt with
> the option
> "--ignore-mdc-error" specified? Or perhaps, with also
> other "Doing
> things one usually doesn't want to do." o
Il 23/05/2018 04:35, Craig P Hicks ha scritto:
> When decrypted by the user in its raw form the total message will be
> human readable but a little ugly because it contains the obfuscation
> string *o*, but it will be safe from EFAIL.
While that could be OK for human-readable files, it silently al
At some finite date in the (hopefully) near future, most email client over
GnuPG users will have an EFAIL-reading safe system setup, if they don't
already. MDC will be strictly enforced.
However, the situation for a secret message sending is not so good. There
is no way to guarantee that the read
> What I percieve a lot in this thread are variations of "I wanna stay in
> bed for five more minutes mommy". I wonder if Werner and Robert should
> charge 5 EUR for every incident of whining to secure some funds?
First, I am in *no way* important to GnuPG's future. I maintain a FAQ,
field questi
This thread really has me pulling my hair--what's left of it. Some core
aspects from where I am standing:
1. GPG is maintained by volunteers. If you have any complaint about how
this maintenance is progressing, get off your behind and be a volunteer
yourself, or failing that, provide an incentive-
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Fiedler Roman wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>> already give an end-of-life date for 2.0, but none for 1.4.
>> And since Ubuntu 16.04 includes 1.4, there are likely
>> to still be a few vocal 1.4 users out there.
>>
>> How about announci
