On Apr 9, 2012 8:57 PM, John Clizbe j...@enigmail.net wrote:
John Gill wrote:
I know that gpg chooses common algos between the sender and recipient.
(I've not tested what will happen with recipients who have no
preferences in common with my enabled algos, but that's a problem for a
new
On Apr 6, 2012 12:15 PM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:32, john.g...@computer.org said:
I am feeding the output of a list-packets for my keying into an awk
script
to build a report on the keys and the preferences for each key.
You wrongly assume that signatures
On 4/10/12 10:09 AM, John Gill wrote:
You wrongly assume that signatures are valid. --list-packets does not
tell you this.
Could you help me understand what you are referring to?
I am, of course, not Werner, but let's see if I can't take a stab at it.
All --list-packets does is take the
I am, of course, not Werner, but let's see if I can't take a stab at it.
All --list-packets does is take the input, in a human-unreadable format,
and transform it into a human-readable format. It performs none of the
computationally expensive mathematics that are required to validate the
I'm assuming the the signatures indicate, roughly the set of options that
my recipients will not receive an error about ignored preferences. For
instance, symmetric algo 9 has been around for the last 10 years at least.
but if I force it on someone who doesn't have it as a preference, the
On Apr 9, 2012, at 10:52 AM, John Gill wrote:
I'm assuming the the signatures indicate, roughly the set of options that my
recipients will not receive an error about ignored preferences. For
instance, symmetric algo 9 has been around for the last 10 years at least.
but if I force it on
I know that gpg chooses common algos between the sender and recipient.
(I've not tested what will happen with recipients who have no preferences
in common with my enabled algos, but that's a problem for a new day.) I'm
not trying to out-think the intelligence codified in the application. I am
John Gill wrote:
I know that gpg chooses common algos between the sender and recipient.
(I've not tested what will happen with recipients who have no
preferences in common with my enabled algos, but that's a problem for a
new day.)
3DES will be used. That's why it is an implementation MUST
Thank you all for your answers. I've been reading 2440, 4880, and trying
to read the source to several old and current versions of gnupg 1.x series
for some time. My question was an attempt to verify my understanding of
how the specific output was structured. There was sample pgpdump output
On 06/04/12 16:32, John Gill wrote:
Of course, if there is a better way to extract all the preferences data,
using just the gpg program, please let me know.
I just found this in the manual:
$ gpg --list-options show-sig-subpackets --with-colons --list-sigs KEYID
And I see for my own self
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 16:32, john.g...@computer.org said:
I am feeding the output of a list-packets for my keying into an awk script
to build a report on the keys and the preferences for each key.
You wrongly assume that signatures are valid. --list-packets does not
tell you this.
With-colons
Please point me to a detailed explanation for the output of list-packets.
I have googled and read manuals, etc. but just can't seem to locate the
knowledge.
John
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On 04/05/2012 03:09 PM, John Gill wrote:
Please point me to a detailed explanation for the output of list-packets.
I have googled and read manuals, etc. but just can't seem to locate the
knowledge.
the output of gpg --list-packets tends to make a lot of implicit
references to the tables and
John Gill wrote:
Please point me to a detailed explanation for the output of
list-packets. I have googled and read manuals, etc. but just can't seem
to locate the knowledge.
RFC 4880 - OpenPGP Message Format
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880
You may run into values from
RFC 5581 - The
14 matches
Mail list logo
