On Dec 8, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
>> Basically I am the list owner :-(.
>
> Good grief man, your head must hurt from all those hats. :)
His other name is Zaphod.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.o
Werner Koch wrote:
> Basically I am the list owner :-(.
Good grief man, your head must hurt from all those hats. :)
I've spent a good bit of time hanging around the mailman-users list
and managing a few smaller lists for others. I would be glad to try
and help figure out what list settings could
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> point others to the signed patch. If any of the list owners have some
> free time I'd be happy to try to get that corrected or take it to the
> mailman-users list for advice if need be. (It seems that the content
> filter settings for the list
Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> I got a patch plus sig just fine, sure it isn't somewhere between
> the list server and you that the scrubbing happens?
I'm only talking about the archives. The patch arrived here just fine
as well. But say I want to point at it in a distribution package or
tell a frien
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 02:01:22PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
> > Here comes a signed patch against 2.0.1 for those who care to verify
> > signatures ;-).
>
> Thanks Werner. Seems that the list archives scrub the attachment,
> which makes it
Werner Koch wrote:
> Here comes a signed patch against 2.0.1 for those who care to verify
> signatures ;-).
Thanks Werner. Seems that the list archives scrub the attachment,
which makes it less useful than it'd be otherwise, 'cause you can't
point others to the signed patch
Hi!
Here comes a signed patch against 2.0.1 for those who care to verify
signatures ;-).
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
This is a patch against GnuPG 2.0.1. Change the directory to g10/ and
apply
