Re: Implications of a common private keys directory in 2.1

On 03/12/16 18:21, MFPA wrote: > If the recipients are hidden, doesn't GnuPG first try the key set > with --default-key, followed by any keys set with --try-secret-key? Hey, I didn't know that! Thanks! > That is sufficient for your smartcard and known-hidden-key examples, > but not for Caro's

Re: Implications of a common private keys directory in 2.1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Saturday 3 December 2016 at 2:35:09 PM, in , Peter Lebbing wrote:- > An option --only-try-secret would solve both > (your software > would know which to try for a given nym

Re: gpgme 1.8 build failure (again)

> I am not sure whether this was helpful but I wrote That was the one I needed. :) For some reason, something in the GPGME build requires _DARWIN_C_SOURCE to be set. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org

Re: Implications of a common private keys directory in 2.1

On 25/11/16 00:03, Carola Grunwald wrote: > Let's just say I hold two nym accounts at different nym servers > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudononymous_remailer#Contemporary_nym_servers Right, you're also hiding the proxy server. So if the proxy used the same public key for multiple nym

Re: private subkey not found

Hello Werner, Thanks for your reply > That does not look like the standard output of gpg 2.1.15 - Please > remove the keyid-format option from your gpg.conf. Here is the output you requested: sec# rsa4096 2016-11-19 [C] [expires: 2021-11-18] some_hex_value uid [ultimate] zep

Re: Proof for a creation date

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Friday 2 December 2016 at 1:46:00 PM, in , Stephan Beck wrote:- > gpg's signature timestamp (on a given file) would NOT > be a real proof of > a document being allegedly signed at that