* Peter T. Abplanalp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-01 12.14 -0700]:
[...]
> right. that is what i thought. so the question remains, how does one
> develop a web of trust using good judgement while probably being unable
> to verify anyone's identity outside of long distance (email, phone, fax, et
Others have answered the other points, so I'll just answer this:
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:00:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> so you are saying it is a totally subjective judgement call?
Yes. It's a question of trust, which is very difficult to compute
algorithmically...
The question i
> Something isn't configured properly in your GnuPG. It sounds like it
> doesn't trust YOUR key.
entirely possible but i think everything is set up correctly. here is
what i get when i run a check on my key:
pub 1024D/7D224574 created: 2002-01-09 expires: never trust: -/u
sub 1024g/CB4
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:00:39AM -0700:
>
> ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the
> keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your
> key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes gpg, i get the sam
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:00:39PM -0500, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
> ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the
> keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your
> key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes gpg, i get the same message of
> "good
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:42:19PM -0500, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> If you're using GnuPG, see the "lsign" option.
ok. just to see how things work, i lsigned the key that i got from the
keyserver when i opened the email i am responding to. presumably your
key and email ;-). now when mutt invokes
begin quoting what Peter T. Abplanalp said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:37:49AM -0700:
>
> just wondering why the non-standards-following option contains the word
> traditional.
Because usage of PGP predates the establishment of standards.
> helpfull and it sort of relates to mutt...what is the
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100, Dave Smith wrote:
> You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the
> pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing
> messages that have been used in the past, and many discussions have taken
> place here, and p
Peter, et al --
...and then Peter T. Abplanalp said...
%
% hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my
Welcome!
% emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept
% emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread
Yeah, I
begin quoting what Dave Smith said on Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:33:36PM +0100:
>
> You could succumb to the non-standards-following world and use the
> pgp_create_traditional variable. There are also other ways of signing
My two cents:
Succumb. Inline sigs are annoying, and when you get a comp
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:09:38AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my
> emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept
> emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread
> msft virus
hi all. just a quick question from a newbie. i usually sign all my
emails but one of the lists i write to complains that it will not accept
emails with attachments due to the fact that they don't want to spread
msft viruses. now it is my understanding that when you sign an email you
are actuall
12 matches
Mail list logo