On Tue 13/Jun/2023 13:02:09 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely (from Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:19:02
+0200):
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 08:46:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users (from Mon,
12 Jun 2023 18:45
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 11:40:39 +0200 Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
BTW, the whole DKIM thing does not protect the body of a mail because
for example the Content-type is not commonly included in the hash and
thus you can change the boundary in this header and then tweak the body.
That hack
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 08:46:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users (from Mon, 12
Jun 2023 18:45:37 +0200):
The From was re-written be the list and as such the header check fails. The
body check fails as the list adds the following
On Tue 13/Jun/2023 09:26:06 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Werner Koch via Gnupg-users (from Tue, 13 Jun
2023 09:02:31 +0200):
lists.gnupg.org does not do DKIM. I know stripped the obvious wrong
DKIM-Signature headers before they are processed by Mailman. Let's see
On Mon 12/Jun/2023 21:24:54 +0200 Konstantin Ryabitsev via Gnupg-users wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 06:45:37PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users
wrote:
What the list-software would need to do is to strip the original DKIM signature
Why? Original signatures can often be recovered
On Mon 12/Jun/2023 13:05:51 +0200 Alexander Leidinger via Gnupg-users wrote:
Quoting Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users (from Mon, 12
Jun 2023 10:57:32 +0200):
Hi,
would someone please explain DKIM settings of lists.gnupg.org?
I'm not involved in gnupg.org administration, but it looks like
Hi,
would someone please explain DKIM settings of lists.gnupg.org?
Looking at recent posts, I counted 44 with a failed signature by d=gnupg.org,
22 with no DKIM signature at all and none with a good signature.
I'm asking because there was a proposal to eliminate SPF from DMARC
On Mon 17/Oct/2022 09:43:56 +0200 Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
How to check whether GnuPG has been fixed
~
GnuPG is the most prominent user of Libksba and it is not immediately
visible whether a fixed version of Libksba is used. To check this
On Tue 28/Sep/2021 17:39:29 +0200 Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Feedback (and help) is always appreciated.:)
I'm not sure if WKD/forHosts would be a better location than WKDHosting.
Anyway, I'd publish the test suggested by Alissa on this list on 8 July 2019:
gpg --homedir "$(mktemp -d)"
On Fri 29/May/2020 12:29:48 +0200 Stefan Claas wrote:
> Binarus wrote:
>> On 28.05.2020 23:21, Stefan Claas wrote:
>>>
>>> while it is not my business, I do not understand why you have to
>>> take care about the Thunderbird issue, as a users and not the
>>> Aufsichtsbehörde ... If for example you
On Wed 13/May/2020 11:54:12 +0200 Damien Goutte-Gattat via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Sylvain Besençon via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
>> I guess that Curve 25519 is mentioned in the IETF standard, isn't it?
>
> Not yet. Officially, only the NIST P-256, P-384, and
On Mon 07/Oct/2019 12:04:33 +0200 Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:21, vedaal said:
>
>> and then a separate option of
>> "Export Secret Keys"
>
> The OP explictly suggested to make the exporting of the secret key not
> too easy so that users don't accidently send out
On Tue 13/Aug/2019 13:07:07 +0200 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 13/08/2019 09:54, Alessandro Vesely via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> More than a reasonable number of signatures makes no sense in
>> practice, so I agree lists should somehow be "fixed" so as not to
>>
On Tue 13/Aug/2019 12:08:31 +0200 Werner Koch Via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:54, gnupg-users@gnupg.org said:
>
>> The bug, however, is in the program that chokes on poisoned keys!
>
> Nope. This is a long standing DoS protection by limiting the total
> length of a keyblock.
On Mon 12/Aug/2019 19:27:49 +0200 Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 12/08/2019 18:39, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Why was is then not fixed a decade ago, like it was done with 2.2.17?
>
> There is no fix for the SKS keyserver network, which explains why it
> wasn't fixed in 2.2.17 either. In
15 matches
Mail list logo
