On 18/01/2021 00.43, Stefan Claas wrote:
> But what you say I was thinking about as well. My proposal was to include
> in the policy file fingerprint(s) of key(s) and generate an .ots file, from
> opentimestamps.org, from the policy file and put that .ots file somewhere.
> In the old days it was
Hi Stefan,
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:41:44 +0100,
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Please try to accept that GitHub (and maybe in the future others as well)
> has *no* bad certificate!
As others have tried to explain: the certificate that github uses for
sub.sub.github.com is invalid for
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:27:05 +0100,
Ángel wrote:
> I feel there is a need for a proper wkd test suite (as well as a
> clarifying on the draft itself the things that are coming up).
FWIW, there is Wiktor Kwapisiewicz's wkd checker:
https://gitlab.com/wiktor-k/wkd-checker
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:27:24PM +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:16 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
> Please try to accept that GitHub's SSL cert is *valid*, or do you think
> that a CA certifies and invalid cert?
Please try to accept
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 09:14:37AM +0100, Stefan Claas
wrote:
> Regarding a multi-purpose key and WKD. I mentioned here already
> that a multi-purpose usage key can be used for other tasks as well,
> besides popular email.
I know that keys can be used for things other than
email, but the point
On 17/01/2021 21.39, Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
> And as far as Sequoia is concerned, Stefen's explanations only confirmed
> that this is software that I definitely don't want to use.
> Software that accepts an invalid digital certificate as correct, has no
> place in an environment
"a@b:c$ gpg -e -b -r Mike data.file" produces the encrypted file
data.file.sig with the detached signature of data.file
I don't think there's a oneliner for what you're trying to achieve
gpg -er Mike data.file
gpg -b data.file.gpg
17.01.2021 00:56, Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users пишет:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:02 PM Remco Rijnders wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:27:24PM +0100, Stefan wrote in
> :
> >On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:16 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
> > wrote:
> >
> >Hi Juergen.
> >
> >> Your showcase with github.io also says nothing else than that Sequoia
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:27:24PM +0100, Stefan wrote in
:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:16 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
Hi Juergen.
Your showcase with github.io also says nothing else than that Sequoia
considers an invalid certificate to be correct. That this happens in
audited
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:16 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
Hi Juergen.
> Your showcase with github.io also says nothing else than that Sequoia
> considers an invalid certificate to be correct. That this happens in
> audited software says just as much about the value of the audit.
Well Stefan,
Am 17.01.21 um 21:44 schrieb Stefan Claas:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:40 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
I can only agree with Andre's words.
Perfectly fine for me if you take this route.
And as far as Sequoia is concerned, Stefen's explanations only confirmed
that
A little more than a month ago I said I'd match all donations made to
GnuPG from December 10 to January 6. I'm happy to report y'all made me
contribute 370 Euros, or about $450 USD. The money has been paid and
is sitting in GnuPG's account.
I hope this encouraged some of y'all to donate to
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:40 PM Juergen Bruckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> I can only agree with Andre's words.
Perfectly fine for me if you take this route.
> And as far as Sequoia is concerned, Stefen's explanations only confirmed
> that this is software that I definitely don't want to use.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
And I assume, it's non-trivial or even impossible to start proper DNS
queries (for a SRV record) from within JS?
Apparently not, at least that what folks on the IETF openpgp mailing
lists said when the issue had
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:21 PM André Colomb wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
Hi Andre,
> Don't you find it strange that you are the only one still insisting that
> it's valid when several very knowledgeable people have explained to you
> in many different ways why it's simply not true?
Yes, very strange
I can only agree with Andre's words.
And as far as Sequoia is concerned, Stefen's explanations only confirmed
that this is software that I definitely don't want to use.
Software that accepts an invalid digital certificate as correct, has no
place in an environment where security and
Hi Stefan,
On 17/01/2021 19.41, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Please try to accept that GitHub (and maybe in the future others as well)
> has *no* bad certificate! The only thing which could be considered "bad"
> or at least sub-optimal for a global ML, like this one, Is the support in
>
On 1/16/2021 3:18 AM, Stefan Claas
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:57 AM Stefan Claas
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:34 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
wrote:
The intention is to sign and encrypt
a@b:c$ gpg -e -b -r Mike data.file
produced "data.file.sig" and no "data.file.gpg"
Thanks,
Ayoub
On 1/16/2021 2:53 AM, Dmitry Gudkov
wrote:
Just get rid of -s
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 7:30 PM Ángel wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-17 at 16:28 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > sorry, but simply said I discovered now that a second major and
> > trusted
> > contender, Mailvelope supported by BSI and audited, works also as
> > sequoia-pgp does. Werner and his (shrinking
On 2021-01-17 at 16:28 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> sorry, but simply said I discovered now that a second major and
> trusted
> contender, Mailvelope supported by BSI and audited, works also as
> sequoia-pgp does. Werner and his (shrinking in numbers) supporters
> should think now what do to,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
On Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 10:48:17 CET Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
Hi all,
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
I understand this to
On Sonntag, 17. Januar 2021 10:48:17 CET Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
> >> I understand this to mean it as "only use the direct method if the
> >> required sub-domain does not
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:14 AM Stefan Claas
wrote:
> Regarding a multi-purpose key and WKD. I mentioned here already
> that a multi-purpose usage key can be used for other tasks as well,
> besides popular email. Remember only my old thread where I asked
> for some volunteers in the EU, which
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:28 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:49 PM Ángel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> sorry, but simply said I discovered now that a second major and trusted
> contender, Mailvelope supported by BSI and audited, works also as
> sequoia-pgp does. Werner and his
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:49 PM Ángel wrote:
[...]
sorry, but simply said I discovered now that a second major and trusted
contender, Mailvelope supported by BSI and audited, works also as
sequoia-pgp does. Werner and his (shrinking in numbers) supporters
should think now what do to, instead of
On 2021-01-17 at 00:28 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:09 AM raf wrote:
> > What you refer to as "proper" is just the direct method.
> > That's only half of the WKD protocol. There is also the
> > advanced method. Both methods together comprise the WKD
> > protocol.
>
>
On 2021-01-17 at 10:48 +0100, Erich Eckner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
> >
> >> I understand this to mean it as "only use the direct method if the
> >> required sub-domain does not exist", with the
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:33 PM Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:51 AM Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021, Stefan Claas wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:51 AM Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Stefan Claas
wrote:
> Well, Mailvelope, for example is a Browser based add-on with WKD support.
> Mailvelope can be used with services like Gmail, so that you don't need a MUA.
>
> There is also now a competing product for Mailvelope, from IIRC, the
> United
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:51 AM Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
> >
> >> I understand this to mean it as "only use the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
I understand this to mean it as "only use the direct method if the
required sub-domain does not exist", with the SHOULD meaning that the
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:52 AM raf via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 02:25:14AM +0100, Ángel wrote:
>
> > On 2021-01-15 at 20:34 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > > My intention was only to promote WKD OpenPGP usage for github.io
> > > pages in case people like the
34 matches
Mail list logo
