Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On 9/10/2016 6:04 PM, Claus Assmann wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, Anthony Papillion wrote: > >> I send an email to someone using Gmail, how does Gmail route it if the >> headers are encrypted? Or would the "to" be one of those things not > > You might want to read the RFCs about e-mail: headers

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Whichever "they" you had in mind when you brought it up...? ;-) I said "Enigmail and other clients" -- if you don't specify which precise implementation you're interested in, I don't know which one you want to know about. > memoryhole's readme (thanks for the link!) states that it has been >

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, Anthony Papillion wrote: > I send an email to someone using Gmail, how does Gmail route it if the > headers are encrypted? Or would the "to" be one of those things not You might want to read the RFCs about e-mail: headers are not used for mail routing, the envelope is (just

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

On 10 Sep 2016, at 22:20, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? > > Without knowing who you mean by "they", no, I can't. Whichever "they" you had in mind when you brought it up...? ;-) > Daiki Ueno is > planning on implementing

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Hmm, OK that's kind of what I thought. But I'm still a little > confused. Doesn't the email server have to support it? No. > Or would the "to" be one of those things not encrypted? Headers that are strictly required to process email are not armored.

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 9/10/2016 4:00 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the >> mail headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail >> headers or does it mean something else? > > It means there's a way to

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? Without knowing who you mean by "they", no, I can't. Daiki Ueno is planning on implementing it in Gnus. Patrick Brunschwig has already implemented limited support for it in Enigmail. You'd have to ask them how they plan to implement it.

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

Do you have a link to how they plan to implement it? Andrew Gallagher On 10 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the mail >> headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail headers or does >> it

Re: Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

> I'm confused by this. What does it mean? What does 'armor the mail > headers" mean? Is this the same as 'encrypting' the mail headers or does > it mean something else? It means there's a way to cryptographically protect most (but not all) email headers, which foils many kinds of metadata

Confusion about a statement in the FAQ

Hi Folks, In the FAQ on the gnupg.org site there is a discussion about whether it's acceptable to use PGP/MIME. The FAQ says yes and has the following statement: "Almost certainly. In the past this was a controversial question, but recently there's come to be a consensus: use PGP/MIME whenever

Re: Keybase integration with GnuPG?

> > > > Are there any current plans to integrate Keybase.io into GnuPG at some > > point in the future? > > (ObWarning: I am not a GnuPG developer.) > > I think this is unlikely to occur. Werner's spoken out pretty strongly > against the keybase.io model, which relies heavily on social media

Re: Has GPGME been extended to support TOFU yet?

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:27, 2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net said: > Has GPGME been extended to support TOFU yet? There is support in the repo but we have recently changed data structures. Hopefully we can now keep it as it is and work towards the 1.7.0 release. Missing items for the

Re: :-(( Re: smart card no longer works

Hi Philip, Philip Jackson: > On 10/09/16 06:27, NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > >> I don't have any experience with this error behavior. Please describe >> the situation and the interaction; Did you input passphrase and push >> [OK] button, and then gpg failed? >> >> Please try again with pinentry-curses

Re: Keybase integration with GnuPG?

> I think you are operating under some assumptions about Keybase that are > not entirely accurate. Contrary to what you state, Keybase.io does not > support Facebook as a proof destination. Ack, you're right -- I apologize to the keybase.io crowd. Apparently I got my wires crossed with "Facebook

Excessive quoting (was: smart card no longer works)

> This sounds like a bit of an issue I had with my Omnikey 38xx... You quoted 34 lines there and added 5 lines -- meaning your total message was about 13% content. I hate acting line a netiquette cop, but could you please reduce the amount of unnecessary quoting you do in the future? Thanks.

Re: :-(( Re: smart card no longer works

On 10/09/16 14:27, Philip Jackson wrote: On 10/09/16 06:27, NIIBE Yutaka wrote: I don't have any experience with this error behavior. Please describe the situation and the interaction; Did you input passphrase and push [OK] button, and then gpg failed? Please try again with pinentry-curses

Has GPGME been extended to support TOFU yet?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Has GPGME been extended to support TOFU yet? Neal's announcement of TOFU last October [0] included the note "GpgME has not yet been extended to support TOFU so these messages might not be shown." I have searched, but not found any announcement

Re: :-(( Re: smart card no longer works

On 10/09/16 06:27, NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > I don't have any experience with this error behavior. Please describe > the situation and the interaction; Did you input passphrase and push > [OK] button, and then gpg failed? > > Please try again with pinentry-curses and/or pinentry-tty. Does it work?

Re: Keybase integration with GnuPG?

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 22:46, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: > The counterargument is that keybase.io works just fine with several other > back-ends which are more respecting of privacy -- and if a user wishes to > trust FB, why should GnuPG refuse to honor that user's choice? Given that Facebook users