Exmos. Senhores,
Recebemos a informação que tiveram hoje a amabilidade de nos transmitir e que
muito agradecemos.
Vamos imediatamente analisar o caso e responderemos com a máxima brevidade
possível ao vosso pedido. Assim que for possível, o Serviço de Apoio ao Cliente
entrará em contacto
Ryan McGinnis via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I might be missing something really obvious here but... what is this
> trying to protect against?
What they say they are trying to protect against, I suppose.
I summarised my understanding of it by saying:
> > It might not address all threats but it
Exmos. Senhores,
Recebemos a informação que tiveram hoje a amabilidade de nos transmitir e que
muito agradecemos.
Vamos imediatamente analisar o caso e responderemos com a máxima brevidade
possível ao vosso pedido. Assim que for possível, o Serviço de Apoio ao Cliente
entrará em contacto
Exmos. Senhores,
Recebemos a informação que tiveram hoje a amabilidade de nos transmitir e que
muito agradecemos.
Vamos imediatamente analisar o caso e responderemos com a máxima brevidade
possível ao vosso pedido. Assim que for possível, o Serviço de Apoio ao Cliente
entrará em contacto
On Fri, 2019-11-01 at 15:42 -0400, Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 10/29/19 8:33 PM, raf via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry if this was mentioned before but I've just come
> > across a novel approach to email encryption that
> > doesn't do end-to-end encryption, but rather it
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/29/19 8:33 PM, raf via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this was mentioned before but I've just come
> across a novel approach to email encryption that
> doesn't do end-to-end encryption, but rather it
> encrypts email upon receipt so
I might be missing something really obvious here but... what is this
trying to protect against? It's not protecting against interception in
transit, since the message already transits the internet either in
cleartext or encrypted via TLS that your email service provider can
definitely read. So
Hi,
Sorry if this was mentioned before but I've just come
across a novel approach to email encryption that
doesn't do end-to-end encryption, but rather it
encrypts email upon receipt so that an individual can
encrypt the email that is stored in their IMAP account
as it arrives without the need
Andreas Boehlk writes:
> I do not agree with this one. IMHO the verification with a trusted GPG-Key is
> absolutely sufficiant and the checksum-proof is not needed at all.
True, since validating the signature means validating the secure hash of
the contents. That is, the checkum is reisistant
> john doe hat am 8. Oktober 2019 um 07:45 geschrieben:
> To summarize:
>
> - Checksumming a file insures that the file has not been corrupted
> - Verifying a file insures that the file has not been tempered with
I totally agree to both statements
>
> Idealy, both steps are to be done.
>
I
Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users writes:
> So what? If the goal is private communication, ProtonMail and Tutanota
> are nearly effortless ways to achieve it. Sign up for a free account
How do you figure that? If they aren't encrypting mail then how is it
private? Or or is it using some other
On 10/9/2019 Tony Lane wrote:
> On 10/8/19 9:21 AM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Sure it's a solution. I have accounts at both. Most of my email is not
>> encrypted because, as the original poster pointed out, most people I
>> communicate with are not particularly interested in privacy.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/8/19 9:21 AM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 10/7/19 4:59 PM, Sheogorath via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Protonmail on the other hand is able to speak OpenPGP, they just don't
>> do it. Not even when you answer to a OpenPGP encrypted email,
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 15:49:35 -0400, Jean-David Beyer via Gnupg-users
stated:
>On 10/7/19 9:32 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>> Bingo! And as long as the user is not interested in it, and won't
>> learn how to properly use it, all they will get is the veneer of
>> privacy and learn the hard way that
On 10/7/19 4:59 PM, Sheogorath via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 9/30/19 4:38 PM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> On 9/30/19 4:58 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:
>>> Dear GNUPG developers,
>>>
>>> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
>>
>>> 3/ Please d
Phillip Susi writes:
>
> Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users writes:
> > The original poster, perhaps unintentionally, stated the real reason the
> > masses have not adopted PGP, "Please do appreciate that the persons who
> > we are convincing and instructing are not particularly interested in
> >
Sheogorath via Gnupg-users:
> I'm sorry to disappoint you here: Neither ProtonMail nor Tutanota speak
> proper OpenPGP (by default) with outside services. Tutanota doesn't
> speak OpenPGP at all and completely bound to their own way of doing
> "email"(?)[1].
>
> Protonmail on the other hand is
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 7 October 2019 at 9:15:54 AM, in
> , john doe wrote:-
>
>
>> would it be possible to add the ability to
>> checksum the binaries?
>
> When a new GnuPG version is announced, there are checksums in the
> announcement. For example, see https://gnupg.org/index.html#sec-3-2.
>
To
On 9/30/19 4:38 PM, Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On 9/30/19 4:58 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:
>> Dear GNUPG developers,
>>
>> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
>
>> 3/ Please do appreciate that the persons who we are convincing and
>> instructing are no
On 10/7/19 9:32 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Bingo! And as long as the user is not interested in it, and won't learn
> how to properly use it, all they will get is the veneer of privacy and
> learn the hard way that they really aren't secure. You just can't make
> security idiot proof.
I had a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 7 October 2019 at 9:15:54 AM, in
, john doe wrote:-
> would it be possible to add the ability to
> checksum the binaries?
When a new GnuPG version is announced, there are checksums in the
announcement. For example, see
Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users writes:
> The original poster, perhaps unintentionally, stated the real reason the
> masses have not adopted PGP, "Please do appreciate that the persons who
> we are convincing and instructing are not particularly interested in
> privacy." That's it in a nutshell.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:30, Robert J. Hansen said:
> *absolutely no way* integrated into the email message. That had to wait
> until the PGP/MIME RFCs -- that was when OpenPGP became an email protocol.
MIME types for PGP inline were used on Unix soon after the introduction
of MIME in 1992 at
Hi, thanks for your answer.
> Hi
>
>
> On Saturday 5 October 2019 at 7:05:55 PM, in
> , john doe wrote:-
>
>
>> In other words, how can I only install the command
>> line version of GPG on
>> Windows.
>
> At https://gnupg.org/download/index.html#sec-1-2 there's a link to
> download "Simple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Saturday 5 October 2019 at 7:05:55 PM, in
, john doe wrote:-
> In other words, how can I only install the command
> line version of GPG on
> Windows.
At https://gnupg.org/download/index.html#sec-1-2 there's a link to
download "Simple
On 05/10/2019 15:06, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> OpenPGP was never meant to be about email.
https://www.openpgp.org/ tells a different story.
It would benefit the community if you guys stop bending over backwards,
explaining potential users that their needs are invalid.
Over and out. I really
Sent from my iPad
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 10/5/2019 at 12:58 PM, "Werner Koch via Gnupg-users"
wrote:
>I agree with you and, although I sometimes hack on GPA, I would
>suggest
>Kleopatra. On Windows Kleopatra and the Explorer plugin do
>actually do
>what you suggest and we LOTS of folks using Gpg4win. Be it for
>plain
>file
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/5/19 7:19 AM, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:15, Stefan Claas said:
>
>> installing MUAs and plug-ins, besides of GnuPG) point them to the FAQ as
>> learning resource and then show them as modern alternative
On 10/5/2019 6:54 PM, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:58, Roland Siemons said:
>
>> 4/ Here is my proposal:
>> 4.1/ Stimulate that people use a GUI like GPA or Kleopatra. Not Enigmail,
>
> Enigmail folks won't like that suggestion. Users need to install a
> second tool
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:58, Roland Siemons said:
> 4/ Here is my proposal:
> 4.1/ Stimulate that people use a GUI like GPA or Kleopatra. Not Enigmail,
Enigmail folks won't like that suggestion. Users need to install a
second tool which behaves different (because Enigmail implements parts
of
> Well, I only remember learning about PGP back then in Usenet and everybody
> used it for email communications or with Cypherpunk Remailers and seldom for
> file encryption.
No, they were using it for file encryption. They were using email as a
file transport protocol. That's what inline PGP
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Not to rain your parade, but I follow the topic encryption since the mid
> > '80s and can say nowadays that GnuPG has failed to become an email
> > encryption product for the masses, which IIRC was the initial goal of Mr
> > Zimmermann's PGP back in the early ninetees.
> Not to rain your parade, but I follow the topic encryption since the mid '80s
> and can say nowadays that GnuPG has failed to become an email encryption
> product for the masses, which IIRC was the initial goal of Mr Zimmermann's PGP
> back in the early ninetees.
It was not to be an email
> Our views on what can be considered a successful adoption are strongly
> misaligned.
OpenPGP was never meant to be about email. It was never meant to be
about instant messaging. It was never meant to be about any of that.
It was meant to be a toolbox people could use to help solve a wide
> Everybody speaks https or smtps and probably S/MIME but what about
> OpenPGP?
S/MIME adoption has far exceeded OpenPGP's in the world of email for a
simple reason:
You can make a whole ton of money as an S/MIME CA.
OpenPGP was designed such as to, as far as possible, cut centralized
trusted
Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I agree that there are easier-to-learn encryption solutions than GnuPG.
> Mailvelope, FlowCrypt, ProtonMail, Mailfence and Tutanota come
> immediately to mind. Any is adequate for the privacy needs of the
> masses. Unfortunately, the masses haven't swarmed to
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:15, Stefan Claas said:
>
> > installing MUAs and plug-ins, besides of GnuPG) point them to the FAQ as
> > learning resource and then show them as modern alternative Mailvelope
>
> And don't forget to point them to all the HOWTOS and RFCs required to
On 10/5/19 6:15 AM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
>> But go ahead, please rationalize why "ease-of-use" is more important than
>> actual security for power-users such as myself and those who absolutely won't
>> compromise on true E2EE.
>
> Not to rain
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:15, Stefan Claas said:
> installing MUAs and plug-ins, besides of GnuPG) point them to the FAQ as
> learning resource and then show them as modern alternative Mailvelope
And don't forget to point them to all the HOWTOS and RFCs required to to
use and admin a MUA, sendmail,
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:28, Stefan Claas said:
> Well, I was wrong. It seems that the U.S. ESIGN Act is pretty relaxed
> and does not need such strong requirements like in the EU.
The EU neither. Even the Qualifizierte Elektronische Signatur,
introduced in Germany ages ago, is not anymore a
Dear List,
I explained a problem.
I proposed a step forward towards a solution.
There were 17 responses.
So far, those responses either:
- advised to no longer use GnuPG, or
- denied or downplayed the problem (although I demonstrated the
existence of the problem), or
- argued against those
Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> But go ahead, please rationalize why "ease-of-use" is more important than
> actual security for power-users such as myself and those who absolutely won't
> compromise on true E2EE.
Not to rain your parade, but I follow the topic encryption since the mid '80s
> On 10/4/19 3:35 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
>> And do those 20 companies business with their customers were GnuPG
>> signatures are legally binding, like real signatures on letters?
>
> _At least_ 20 fortune 500 businesses _that I know of_. Mind you, I'm
not even counting governments.
20? Wow.
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Tony Lane wrote:
>
> > Digital signatures are, in general, legally binding.
>
> In the EU qualified digital signatures (QES) are legally binding
> and I strongly doubt that in the U.S. with it's ESIGN Act the same
> holds true for GnuPG home installations.
Tony Lane wrote:
> Digital signatures are, in general, legally binding.
In the EU qualified digital signatures (QES) are legally binding
and I strongly doubt that in the U.S. with it's ESIGN Act the same
holds true for GnuPG home installations.
I guess a proper Google search will show it us.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/4/19 3:35 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> And do those 20 companies business with their customers were GnuPG
> signatures are legally binding, like real signatures on letters?
_At least_ 20 fortune 500 businesses _that I know of_. Mind you, I'm not
Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 10/3/19 5:53 PM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > And this is probably the reason why digital signatures from GnuPG were never
> > been adopted (for business related things) in the EU and elsewere.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/3/19 5:53 PM, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> And this is probably the reason why digital signatures from GnuPG were never
> been adopted (for business related things) in the EU and elsewere.
I don't know about the EU, but I can name at
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> On 10/2/19 4:15 PM, Chris Narkiewicz via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > On 02/10/2019 00:55, Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> >> This is not an issue with GnuPG. GnuPG is a back-end utility that
> >> front-end applications (like GUIs) interface to. Go to your vendor of
> >>
On 10/2/19 4:15 PM, Chris Narkiewicz via Gnupg-users wrote:
On 02/10/2019 00:55, Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
This is not an issue with GnuPG. GnuPG is a back-end utility that front-end
applications (like GUIs) interface to. Go to your vendor of choice that
interfaces with GPG and
On 02/10/2019 00:55, Tony Lane via Gnupg-users wrote:
> This is not an issue with GnuPG. GnuPG is a back-end utility that front-end
> applications (like GUIs) interface to. Go to your vendor of choice that
> interfaces with GPG and complain (...)
And this is precisely why GnuPG failed.
Cheers,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
With all due respect... NO.
It is not wise to impede on the power-users who use GPG due to the availability
of the various configurations that brought us here in the first place.
On 9/30/19 9:43 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:[snip]
> 4/ Here is my
Am 30.09.2019 um 21:32 schrieb Dennis Clarke:
> I use Thunderbird 70.0b2 and have used it for years. However it is a
> major pain to implement digital signage and encryption. A pain.
I use enigmail and the signing and encrypting runs very smooth with
thunderbird.
Regards Bernhard
Few people not particularly interested in privacy are going to adopt a
solution requiring selecting, cutting, encrypting and pasting text. If
they already use Thunderbird, Enigmail is an easy enough to learn. The
real stumbling block is that most people don't do email using
Thunderbird or any
On 9/30/19 4:58 AM, Roland Siemons wrote:
> Dear GNUPG developers,
>
> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
> 3/ Please do appreciate that the persons who we are convincing and
> instructing are not particularly interested in privacy. They need simple
> approaches.
ProtonMail
Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Roland Siemons wrote:
>
> > Dear GNUPG developers,
> >
> > We have GOT TO make things simpler.
> >
> > 1/ I do have some years of experience with GnuPG. Especially with
> > convincing people to use it. It is not
Roland Siemons wrote:
> Dear GNUPG developers,
>
> We have GOT TO make things simpler.
>
> 1/ I do have some years of experience with GnuPG. Especially with
> convincing people to use it. It is not easy. But I do it because it is
> in my interest to be able to communica
Dear GNUPG developers,
We have GOT TO make things simpler.
1/ I do have some years of experience with GnuPG. Especially with
convincing people to use it. It is not easy. But I do it because it is
in my interest to be able to communicate privately.
2/ My latest experience is with a person who
Dear
GNUPG developers,
We have GOT TO make things simpler.
1/ I do have some years of experience with GnuPG. Especially
with convincing people to use it. It is not easy. But I do it
because it is in my interest
60 matches
Mail list logo
