On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:33:14 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I prefer gnupg to pgp myself, I did just happen to see a
reference to pgp command line today
the cost is *astronomical*
have played around with it when it was released as a free
command line pgp 8.5 beta
[snipped]
AFAIK
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:33:14AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Todd Zullinger tmz at pobox.com wrote on
Thu Jun 1 11:46:48 CEST 2006 :
While I prefer gnupg to pgp myself, I did just happen to see a
reference to pgp command line today
the cost is *astronomical*
have played around
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 01:59:37PM +0100, David Gray wrote:
Will suggest to the customer that we use signed encrypted
transmissions. The only Issue we then have is that they wish to be
custodians of the private key,
There is no need for them, from the cryptography point of view. Using
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Janusz A. Urbanowicz wrote:
gpg integrates better with autimation and I really doubt that there is
current, supported PGP for anything else than windows and mac.
While I prefer gnupg to pgp myself, I did just happen to see a
reference to pgp
Todd Zullinger tmz at pobox.com wrote on
Thu Jun 1 11:46:48 CEST 2006 :
While I prefer gnupg to pgp myself, I did just happen to see a
reference to pgp command line today
the cost is *astronomical*
have played around with it when it was released as a free
command line pgp 8.5 beta
has a few
-
From: Andreas Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 May 2006 10:31
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Signing vs. encrypting was: Cipher v public key.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Laurent Jumet schrieb:
When sending a message like this one, signed, compressed
