I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as the
receiver. Nobody else will want to look inside them. Is it
possible to add encrypted comments or other information to a
separated signature file; and later retrieve this additional
information? I
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
> I understand this to mean it as "only use the direct method if the
> required sub-domain does not exist", with the SHOULD meaning that the
> direct method is not required (not sure why, I would have probably used
Right. The subdomain is actually a
Hi Ángel,
thanks for your contribution with a clear focus.
On 14/01/2021 01.47, Ángel wrote:
> Probably the most important part of the rule: "all implementations of
> WKD should behave in the same way". I don't mind if it was gnupg that
> was changed to behave like sequoia, but given identical
On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why do
> we
> have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can
> one gain from
> an IMHO very nice WKD checker, Wiktor has created.
Quoting from your own mail:
Hi Stefan,
On 14/01/2021 08.01, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> The greatest benefit would have been if the author of WKD, namly Werner Koch,
> had been so kind to explain to us why WKD needs two methods and what
> security implications it has when an application falls back to a valid
>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:35 AM André Colomb wrote:
>
> On 14/01/2021 00.06, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Maybe, I don't know, readers here on the ML are asking themselves now why
> > do we
> > have two methods, e.g. what is their purpose and what informations can
> > one gain from
> > an IMHO very
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:42 AM André Colomb wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 14/01/2021 08.01, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > The greatest benefit would have been if the author of WKD, namly Werner
> > Koch,
> > had been so kind to explain to us why WKD needs two methods and what
> >
On 1/14/2021 10:37 AM,
ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
On 1/14/2021 at 4:47 AM, "Ayoub Misherghi via
Gnupg-users" wrote:
I am encrypting and signing documents with
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:46 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
>
> I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as the receiver. Nobody
> else will want to look inside them. Is it possible to add encrypted comments
> or other information to a separated signature file; and later
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:15 PM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/14/2021 10:37 AM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2021 at 4:47 AM, "Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users"
> wrote:
>
>
> I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as the receiver. Nobody
> else will
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:16 PM Stefan Claas
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:46 AM Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as the receiver. Nobody
> > else will want to look inside them. Is it possible to add encrypted
> >
On 1/14/2021 11:52 AM, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:16 PM Stefan Claas
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:46 AM Ayoub Misherghi via
Gnupg-users
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as
On 1/14/2021 at 4:47 AM, "Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users" wrote:
body p { margin-bottom:0; margin-top:0; }
I am encrypting and signing documents with myself as the
receiver. Nobody else will want to look inside them. Is it
possible to add encrypted
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:30 PM Ayoub Misherghi wrote:
> Yes I see, thanks. You went at length to help me. Can you please point me to
> a reference that
>
> discusses the standard format of the signature file? I might do something
> silly.
Here is the offical OpenPGP RFC:
vedaal at nym.hush.com vedaal at nym.hush.comwrote on Thu Jan 14
19:37:37 CET 2021:
>but functionally, yes, it can be done.- my mistake. Can't really
be done this way :-((= >[1] Armor the signature file ( gpg --armor
filename.sig ) -should be enarmor instead of armor :-( this
outputs
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:33:00PM +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> [...] My initial post was a help request and I also explained
> why it IMHO would be good to have such a solution, which
> would not hurt the GnuPG ecosystem in any form and would be
> IMHO an enrichment for GnuPG
Am 15. Januar 2021 01:56:04 MEZ schrieb raf via Gnupg-users
:
>But of course, you're not asking for that. You're just
>asking for something to work. There must be other ways.
>Accepting invalid certificates might just have been my
>first thought at how to deal with this. But that would
>enable
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:04 AM raf via Gnupg-users
wrote:
[...]
> I'm really not an expert, and the above might not make
> any sense. I'm just thinking aloud.
Me neither ... :-) For me, the questions I had is still unresolved
when it comes to properly explaing what security implication
it
18 matches
Mail list logo
