Re: PGP and the editor

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Aaron, On Tuesday, September 26, 2000, 5:02 PM, you wrote in part about "PGP and the editor": A> I type a message and it looks file but as soon as I send it or A> place it in the Outbox it goes to an absolute hash, last night I A> had to send a m

Re: pgp 7.0

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This message: 25/09/2000 10:43 GMT. Hello Peter, A reminder of what Peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on: 25 September 2000 at 10:52:08 GMT +0500 PZ> I want to upgrade my PGP instalation from 6.5.8 to 7.0 PZ> and here's a Q. Will TB! work with 7

Re: PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:19:09 -0400 GMT your local time, which was 22.09.2000, 06:19 (GMT+0200) where I live, you wrote: > Under PGP's options, I can set it to "encrypt new messages by default". > But I only want to encry

Re: PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi net5zero, On 22 September 2000 at 00:19:09 GMT -0400 (which was 05:19 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees": nnn> Under PGP's options, I can set it to "encr

Re: PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:19:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Under PGP's options, I can set it to "encrypt new messages by > default". But I only want to encrypt messages to certain > addressees. Is there a way to do this by template, macros or

Re: PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello net5zero and everyone else... nnn> Under PGP's options, I can set it to "encrypt new messages by default". nnn> But I only want to encrypt messages to certain addressees. Is there a nnn> way to do this by template, macros or otherwise? There

Re: PGP encrypt entire test to specific addressees

Friday, September 22, 2000, 06:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Under PGP's options, I can set it to "encrypt new messages by default". > But I only want to encrypt messages to certain addressees. Is there a > way to do this by template, macros or otherwise? Hello net5zero, yes, by using the

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On September 19, 2000, at 2:00:58 PM, Tony Boom Wrote: > What's the difference between all the different version there? I see two > the same but one was just over 1Mb the other 10Mb. The 1 MB file you see there is obviously an incomplete archive. Th

Re: PGP signing problem

This message: 19/09/2000 22:00 GMT. Hello Nick, A reminder of what Nick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on: 19 September 2000 at 09:01:14 GMT -0700 NA> If you want to NA> download Desktop Security Suite 6.5.8 for free, go here: What's the difference between all the different version there? I

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On September 19, 2000, at 12:41:52 AM, Stefano Zamprogno Wrote: > Is this a registered version ? > What i have to do to make TB show my version ? (it only show 6.5) > Thanks ! I used a Hex Editor on the DLL... If you also have 6.5.8 installed on you

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciao Stefano, Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 9:41:52 AM, you wrote: Oops, sorry for S/MIME attachment ! - -- eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] WEB : http://www.zamprogno.com - http://www.zamprogno.it ICQ : 3813299 Using The Bat! 1.47 Be

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciao Nick, Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 5:35:33 AM, you wrote: >> In any case , after i have installed the 1.47b2 version, S/MIME still >> give me the above message NA> Stefano, are you wanting to use PGP, or S/MIME? The two are both NA> encr

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On September 18, 2000, at 6:09:29 AM, Stefano Zamprogno Wrote: >>> I tried to sign one message (by checking sign when completed) but it says: >>> 1. No signing certificate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> 2. No valid signing certificates. Cannot sign the

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciao Marek, Monday, September 18, 2000, 2:31:43 PM, you wrote: >> I tried to sign one message (by checking sign when completed) but it says: >> 1. No signing certificate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 2. No valid signing certificates. Cannot sign the me

Re: PGP signing problem

Hello all, Monday, September 18, 2000, Vladimir Mincev wrote: > I tried to sign one message (by checking sign when completed) but it says: > 1. No signing certificate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2. No valid signing certificates. Cannot sign the message using S/MIME > When I uncheck S/MIME option

Re: PGP signing problem

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciao Vladimir, Monday, September 18, 2000, 11:49:59 AM, you wrote: The same here ! VM> I tried to sign one message (by checking sign when completed) but it says: VM> 1. No signing certificate for [EMAIL PROTECTED] VM> 2. No valid signing certifica

Re: PGP in TB

Hallo Graham, On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 08:21:37 +0100 GMT (17/09/2000, 15:21 +0800 GMT), Graham wrote: G> Go to Tools/Privacy/Choose PGP Version G> There you will see a number of options, two of which are: G> internal (RFC-1991) G> PGP 2.6.3 executable Right, I didn't know where to look. :-) G> I

Re: PGP in TB

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there! Go to Tools/Privacy/Choose PGP Version There you will see a number of options, two of which are: internal (RFC-1991) PGP 2.6.3 executable I had at separate times PGP 2.6.3ckt and PGP 2.6.3ai installed. Both worked fine with windows fron

Re: PGP woes (thanks)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Aaron, On 15 September 2000 at 09:59:11 GMT +1000 (which was 00:59 where I live) Aaron wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP woes (thanks)": A> Well it seems to be working now, BTW I copied the DLL into The Bat! A> directory...that i

Re: PGP woes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Aaron, On 14 September 2000 at 08:57:30 GMT +1000 (which was 23:57 where I live) Aaron wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP woes": A> Can someone tell me where to get thebatpgp60.dll from? The file is tbpgp60.dll but you really

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This message: 12/09/2000 08:33 GMT. Hello SRNA, It would appear not... Unless your using version 6.5.1ckt A reminder of what SRNA ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on: 12 September 2000 at 02:57:42 GMT -0400 S> I appear to have it now - thanks! S

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This message: 11/09/2000 19:37 GMT. Hello SRNA, So can I assume you don't want me to send you a working edited version? A reminder of what SRNA ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed on: 11 September 2000 at 13:44:27 GMT -0400 S> I must have. I did it

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This message: 11/09/2000 11:17 GMT. Hello Wayne, There is a program called Hex Workshop that you can use to edit batpgp65.dll. It can be found at www.bpsoft.com I use 6.5.3 and as you can see the version number in my signatu

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Stefano, On 11 September 2000 at 11:17:28 GMT +0200 (which was 10:17 where I live) Stefano Zamprogno wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP": SZ> with some mailer you can make the program 'remember' the PGP SZ> password until

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Wayne, On 11 September 2000 at 00:13:58 GMT -0700 (which was 08:13 where I live) Wayne Black wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP": WB> Just a little question, I have PGP version 6.5.8 but when I use it WB> with The Bat v1.45 the me

Re: PGP signing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thursday, September 07, 2000, 8:16:18 AM, Marek wrote: > Hello all, > Thursday, September 07, 2000, Cameleon wrote: >> We can setup a macro for "sign when completed". But can we say in >> the template with WHICH key we want sign, assuming t

Re: PGP signing

Hello all, Thursday, September 07, 2000, Cameleon wrote: > We can setup a macro for "sign when completed". But can we say in > the template with WHICH key we want sign, assuming there are many > signing keys in the keyring ? no. You can write wish :-) -- Bye Marek Mikus Using th

Re: pgp key and smartcards

Hello all, Sunday, September 03, 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is it possible to store the entire private key into a smartcard and use > this card with the bat ? Yes. Go to menu "Tools | PGP | Preferences | Files" and check option "Store Private key in a Smart Card" and select Com port. But

Re: PGP

Hi Leif, On 23 July 2000 at 16:04:56 GMT +0900 (which was 08:04 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP": LG>>> Owww, was that a jab! NA>> I apologize if I made it sound as if TBUDL/TBBETA was any NA>> different than PGP-Basics in that regard, as that

Re: PGP

Hello Nick, On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 at 16:30:41 [GMT -0700], you wrote: LG>> Owww, was that a jab! NA> You know Leif, after I sent the message, I was wondering if some NA> might misinterpret what I had written. Hindsight is always 20/20! NA> I apologize if I made it sound as if TBUDL/TBBETA was an

Re: PGP

On Saturday, July 22, 2000, 4:09:13 PM, Leif Gregory wrote: LG> Owww, was that a jab! You know Leif, after I sent the message, I was wondering if some might misinterpret what I had written. Hindsight is always 20/20! I apologize if I made it sound as if TBUDL/TBBETA was any different than PGP-B

Re: PGP

Hello Nick, On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 at 12:43:52 [GMT -0700], you wrote: NA> "so please don't ever think you have to take anything off-List as NA> a Member of PGP-Basics. Owww, was that a jab! Leif Gregory -- TBUDL/TBBETA List Moderator ICQ 216395 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Web Site

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, July 22, 2000, 6:50:54 AM, Kevin Coates wrote: JL> I was going to ask this off-list when I realized there may be others JL> out there who are as ignorant as I; so here goes: Jack, I would like to personally extend an invitation to both

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hello Jack, On Saturday, July 22, 2000 at 05:35:08 -0500 GMT (6:35 AM my local time) you wrote: JL> I was going to ask this off-list when I realized there may be others JL> out there who are as ignorant as I; so here goes: JL> Can you explain exactly where PG

Re: PGP

Jack LaRosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: JL> Can you explain exactly where PGP comes into play regarding these JL> (list) messages? I'd like to know that answer to that question, too. If the identity of a key pair is the list address, say <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, then everybody on that list would hav

Re: PGP

Hi Nick On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, 23:04:30 your time (GMT -0700), you wrote to the list: NA> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- NA> Hash: SHA1 NA> On Wednesday, July 19, 2000, 10:31:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nnn>> I need to learn to use PGP with email. Does anyone know a mailing list nnn>> o

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, July 19, 2000, 10:31:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nnn> I need to learn to use PGP with email. Does anyone know a mailing list nnn> on PGP? Yes... See my signature at the end of this message, or go to the following URL and join PGP-

Re: PGP

On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 01:31:51AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I need to learn to use PGP with email. Does anyone know a mailing list > on PGP? Yep, PGP-basics. See on http://www.egroups.com/group/PGP-Basics for more info, subscription, etc. -- Lionel Elie Mamane RFC 1991 (PGP 2.x) 2048

Re: PGP help?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Jacqueline! Sunday, July 02, 2000, 11:03:50 AM, you wrote: > Somewhat confused, I went through the Preferences section in the > Privacy menu, and specified the location of the files that PGP was > using, hoping that would do something. Nothing

OT: Editors (again!) (was Re: PGP DLL Version Number?)

Hi Gary, On 30 June 2000 at 22:25:03 GMT -0500 (which was 04:25 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP DLL Version Number?": >>> Hey, you think this editor is rough, you should play with Emacs. >>> :-) t>> I donot and neither did I play with edlin (

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hello Gary, On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:01 -0500 GMT your local time, which was Friday, June 30, 2000, 1:16:01 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Gary wrote: > Hey, you think this editor is rough, you should play with Emacs. :-) I donot and neither did I play with edlin (g). when I saw Edlin we convert

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Morning Allie Martin, > ... if you don't use the auto-format feature. :-) ... which isn't flexible and controllable enough for me. > This is a wish, right? :-/ Correct :-) -- .. Jast ... mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : using TB 1.45 Beta/1 : with AMD K6-2, 64MB RAM :. on Windo

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 00:32:04 +0200, Jast wrote: J> That's not the problem for myself. The only real annoyance with the J> editor is that a paragraph reformat places the cursor at the very J> beginning. ... if you don't use the auto-format feature. :-) J> Inconvinient for keyboard editin

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Morning Allie Martin, > Great! But with it I have to get chummy with the and > keys. Worth-while trade-off to me.:-) Of course others think > otherwise ... That's not the problem for myself. The only real annoyance with the editor is that a paragraph reformat places the cursor at the

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:16:01 -0500, Gary wrote: G> Another way to accomplish paragraph reformatting is to just put your G> cursor above the paragraph, hit delete and the paragraph will move up G> already formatted for you. This is with auto-format enabled. :-) G> I also like having th

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Gary, On Thursday 06/29/2000 at 19:16, you wrote: > Hey, you think this editor is rough, you should play with Emacs. > :-) Or vi To much Linux... think *nice* thoughts... - -- Deryk Lister [ICQ] 25869912 Please us

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

G> Hey, you think this editor is rough, you should play with Emacs. :-) Notwithstanding the great reformatting options available for Emacs, the other bonus going for it (if you can program Lisp) is that you can actually remap the keys. -tom! -- Hopin' this said *something* useful, [EMAIL PROT

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hi tracer, > may I recommend not eating soup near your computer, they arent > soup proof (g) Accepted. I'll remember that. On second thought, I'll take my chances. :-; >> Add to that one of my all-time wishes (which is all but >> guaranteed not to happen): Agent 2.0. > I think it will... Re

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hello Jamie Dainton, On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:48:53 +0100 GMT your local time, which was Thursday, June 29, 2000, 4:48:53 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Jamie Dainton wrote: > Hello tracer, > Wednesday, June 28, 2000, 12:08:21 PM, you wrote: I don't recommend TB! to anyone outside of power u

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hello Ming-Li, On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:28:48 -0700 GMT your local time, which was Wednesday, June 28, 2000, 5:28:48 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Ming-Li wrote: > Hi Deryk, >> I've looked. I've searched far and wide... and the next best thing I >> can find, of all the options, is MS LookOut Suxpr

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hello Deryk Lister, On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 00:31:47 +0100 GMT your local time, which was Wednesday, June 28, 2000, 6:31:47 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Deryk Lister wrote: > Hi Tom, > On Tuesday 27/06/2000 at 20:49, you wrote: >> I don't recommend TB! to anyone outside of power users. It's just >

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hi Deryk, > I've looked. I've searched far and wide... and the next best thing I > can find, of all the options, is MS LookOut Suxpress :) I almost spurt my soup on the screen upon reading this. :-D It's not because you're making a ridiculous statement, though I won't exactly put MS OE at no.2.

SOT: TB Pros and Cons (was: Re: PGP DLL Version Number?)

Hello Terry, On Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 14:02:40 GMT -0700 (which was 2:02 PM where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: > I am far from a power user but I found the software useful from the > beginning. In a very short period of time (less than a week) TB! was > ahead of anything else I

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

On Monday, June 26, 2000, 10:09:51 PM, Nick Andriash wrote: NA> Can someone help me out here, and tell me why TB! uses 6.5i as the NA> identifying version of PGP (external), regardless of what someone may NA> have on their system? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can see that my original po

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chuck, On Tuesday 27/06/2000 at 11:47, you wrote: > I've been hanging around, as well, for the long-dangled v2.x, but > I'm beginning to look around now for alternatives. I've looked. I've searched far and wide... and the next best thing I can fi

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tom, On Tuesday 27/06/2000 at 20:49, you wrote: > I don't recommend TB! to anyone outside of power users. It's just > not worth the effort for most people. That just about sums up my feelings. I find TB! great, with the exception of the text ed

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hi Chuck, > As a programmer, though, would you think it prudent to release new > versions (betas) without including any info whatsoever with that beta, > such as what has been changed, added, removed, etc.? For the longest > time we never got any of that info; eventually, we started getting > *s

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

CM> As a programmer, though, would you think it prudent to release new CM> versions (betas) without including any info whatsoever with that beta, CM> such as what has been changed, added, removed, etc.? What has prudent got to do with any of it? Whenever we release new versions of our software,

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

On Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 10:23 AM or thereabouts, Ming-Li wrote the following about PGP DLL Version Number?: Ming-Li> I can relate to Nick and Chuck completely. Committing to Ming-Li> something and then not seeing it progress the way we expect Ming-Li> it to is disheartening. As a programmer

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

Hi Nick, Chuck, and bbe, CM>> I've been hanging around, as well, for the long-dangled v2.x, but CM>> I'm beginning to look around now for alternatives. > There is no alternative to TB! It's simply The Best! I can relate to Nick and Chuck completely. Committing to something and then not seeing

Re: PGP DLL Version Number?

On Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 12:09 AM or thereabouts, Nick Andriash wrote the following about PGP DLL Version Number?: Nick> Can someone help me out here, and tell me why TB! uses 6.5i as Nick> the identifying version of PGP (external), regardless of what Nick> someone may have on their system? I

Re: PGP and message decryption

On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 21:32:35 -0700, Nick Andriash wrote: NA> Allie, you are seeing that behaviour because PGP will not encrypt an NA> attachment to an E-Mail. You will have to encrypt the attachment NA> separately, outside of TB!, and you will have to decrypt it NA> separately as well. So

Re: PGP and message decryption

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, June 04, 2000, 8:52:39 PM, Allie Martin wrote: AM> I've noticed that when encrypted messages which contain AM> attachments are decrypted. The decrypted message that is created doesn't AM> contain the attachments. I'd think that it

Re: PGP signing question.

Hello phil, On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:28:16 -0700 GMT your local time, which was Monday, May 29, 2000, 1:28:16 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, phil wrote: > Greetings Nick! > I look at it this way > If they say they aren't--they ARE. > If they say it isn't--it IS. > If they say they don't--they DO. >

Re: PGP signing question.

Hello Tom Plunket, On Sun, 28 May 2000 00:33:44 -0700 GMT your local time, which was Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:33:44 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Tom Plunket wrote: > http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/pgpfaq.html#SubDSSSubliminal So who checked the MS double key system (g)?? Interesting reading...

Re: PGP signing question.

Hello Tom Plunket, On Sun, 28 May 2000 00:33:44 -0700 GMT your local time, which was Sunday, May 28, 2000, 2:33:44 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Tom Plunket wrote: NA>> Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to be more NA>> secure, but there is also value in security throu

Re: PGP signing question.

this issue, and not taking a stand as I earlier alluded to. I don't have enough information, or experience, to harbour a viewpoint, one way or the other. Don't you wonder though... why the US Government suddenly lifted the export ban on PGP? Kind of makes you question whether or not the NSA

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday, May 28, 2000, 1:24:27 AM, Johannes M. Posel wrote: JMP> But you remember the discussion on PGP-Users about my governments JMP> claims against PGP in favour of OpenPGP and a possible NAI/NSA JMP> "friendship"? While with Open Source, you ca

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Servus Nick, Am 28.05.2000 so gegen 08:06 meintest Du: > Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to > be more secure, but there is also value in security through > obscurity. :o) But you remember the discussion on PGP-Users about my g

Re: PGP signing question.

NA> Personally, I believe Open Source Software has the "potential" to be more NA> secure, but there is also value in security through obscurity. :o) Although there may be corporate value in obscurity, I have a hard time accepting that at a personal level. Sure, nobody is supposed to know what th

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 8:38:53 PM, Gary wrote: p>> Technically if you want to get down and say that, then I've always p>> heard that the older the version of pgp (ie. 2.x) are harder to p>> crack than the newer windows versions. I can't remember

Re: PGP signing question.

On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 3:24:42 PM, Chuck Mattsen wrote: > I'm sure there are reasons of which I'm simply unaware, but why cannot > one simply have their multiple addresses on *one* key? Why the need > for multiple keys? Although PGP allows for more than one User name or E-Mail address for u

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 4:52:37 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote: CD> U.why is that? Isn't PGP..eh..PGP? I mean isn't a 1024 key just as CD> secure implemented in The Bat! as used from an external application? I am CD> not expert, maybe I have m

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 3:13:43 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote: > I see you use an "external" PGP > implementation. It wouldn't be that the internal PGP implementation in > The Bat! can do this? I am now pretty sure it can't after having > looked in e

Re: PGP signing question.

On Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 5:13 PM or thereabouts, Christian Dysthe wrote the following about PGP signing question.: Christian> You are right though, in these multi mail account times Christian> when even your average ISP gives you a few aliases this Christian> functionality would be very helpf

Re: PGP-decryption

On Sat, 27 May 2000 10:09:13 -0700, Nick Andriash wrote: NA> Allie, I think Robert wants to delete the original _encrypted_ NA> message, once it's been decrypted. As it stands, TB! now produces a NA> totally separate unecrypted copy of the message which he wants to NA> keep, and then delete the o

Re: PGP-decryption

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, May 27, 2000, 9:05:18 AM, Allie Martin wrote: RB>> Is it possible to decrypt the original message instead of creating a RB>> decrypted copy? I save all messages decrypted here, so I have to RB>> delete the original manually for the momen

Re: PGP-decryption

On Sat, 27 May 2000 14:42:11 +0200, Robert Bratgjerd wrote: RB> Is it possible to decrypt the original message instead of creating a RB> decrypted copy? I save all messages decrypted here, so I have to RB> delete the original manually for the moment. If not, can I use a RB> filter or macro to del

Re: PGP signing question.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, May 26, 2000, 8:33:43 PM, Christian Dysthe wrote: > I have different PGP keys for different mail accounts. Is it way to have > The Bat! sign with a specified key based on which account mail is sent > from? I have two Accounts Christian, a

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

On Wed, 17 May 2000 08:38:58 -0700, Nick Andriash wrote: > Allie, I'm using 6.5.3 with Win 98, but I don't have that problem with > importing keys. I do exactly the same thing as you describe, and I have > no problem importing the key. Don't know what to suggest. :o( It's OK. I've realised that

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, May 16, 2000, 1:58:29 AM, Allie Martin wrote: > When I select Specials | Import key, nothing happens. In fact, what I have > to do is select Specials | Check digital signature. When it checks the > signature, it also imports the key at th

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:33:30 +0100, Jamie Dainton wrote: AM>> I'm having trouble importing keys that are pasted into messages. -- snip -- > AM. I had the same problem importing your key. It seems to be a > problem if the mail with the key is PGP signed. I have no problem with the PGP signed m

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 */Reply Tuesday, May 16, 2000, 9:58:29 AM, you wrote: AM> Hi, AM> I'm having trouble importing keys that are pasted into messages. AM> When I select Specials | Import key, nothing happens. In fact, what I have AM> to do is select Specials | Check

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

Hi Allie Martin, On Tuesday, May 16, 2000 at 10:58:29 AM you wrote: > Hi, > I'm having trouble importing keys that are pasted into messages. > When I select Specials | Import key, nothing happens. In fact, what I have > to do is select Specials | Check digital signature. When it checks the > s

Re: PGP 6.5.3 and importing keys

Hello Allie, I always open PGP keys, Copy the public key text, right click in the very bottom of the pgp keys window, and paste. This will give you an import key dialogue. -- guano, :-) Chris Honk [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to http://www.vanhonk.com/key/ <

Re: PGP

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, May 10, 2000, 8:14:19 AM, Sebastian Busch wrote: > is it possible to sign my new messages with PGP, storing the signature > in an mail attachment instead of inserting it in the original message > text. (afair this "attachment behavior

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

This message: 07/05/2000 11:17 GMT. Hello Lionel, On 07 May 2000 at 09:02:56 GMT +0200 (which was 08:02 where I live) Lionel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) typed: LEM> Hello Tony, TB>> being 6.5i LEM> That's because you are using the "The Bat!" plug-in, and the Version LEM> of PGP is hard-coded in The

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This message: 06/05/2000 20:01 GMT. Hello Lionel, I just downloaded 6.5.3. When I view the version number it says 6.5.3. If you look at the signature using this version it states it as being 6.5i - -- ___

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

Hi Allie, On Saturday, May 06, 2000, 9:00:12 AM, you wrote in part about "PGP and Win2000 Pro": Just go to www.pgpi.com. It is right there on the opening menu. This is the official international site. Even has PgP phone. A> Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version tha

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

On Sat, 6 May 2000 16:56:11 +0200, Juergen Frisch wrote: >look here: http://www.pgpi.org THANKS!! It installed OK. -- © 2000 Allie Martin /*\ Using TB! v1.42 Beta/21 on Win2k Pro --- Urghm! - "I appreciate your not breathing while I smoke " -- ---

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

On Sat, 6 May 2000 09:00:12 -0500, Allie Martin wrote: >Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version that works >with Win2k? http://www.pgpi.com ->download->PGP->Windows_2000->PGP_6.5.3->Download_PGP_6.5.3->wait for download to finish :) Best wishes, Cristi -- -

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

Hi Allie, On Saturday, May 06, 2000, 9:00:12 AM, you wrote in part about "PGP and Win2000 Pro": A> Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version that works A> with Win2k? Allie, I was on www.pgpi.com a couple of days ago, and they have the new 6.53i version which does support

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

On Sat, 6 May 2000 16:23:09 +0200, Patrick Erler wrote: AM>> Hi, AM>> Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version that works AM>> with Win2k? > i got mine from www.nai.com... This site points you to PGP.com which doesn't allow downloading by non-US/Canadian residents. -- ©

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

Saturday, May 06, 2000, 16:00, Allie Martin wrote: > Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version that > works with Win2k? Hello Allie, look here: http://www.pgpi.org -- Best regards, Jürgen -- Using The Bat! 1.42 under Win

Re: PGP and Win2000 Pro

hallo Allie! on Saturday, May 06, 2000, 4:00:12 PM, you wrote: AM> Hi, AM> Does anyone know where I could get an international PGP version that works AM> with Win2k? i got mine from www.nai.com... PAT -- vcard/LDAP/PGP: http://dresden-online.com/~perler/identity.html PGP fingerprint: DA

Re: PGP signed attachment with extension "att"

On Tuesday, April 11, 2000, 12:58:34 PM, Tony Boom wrote: > I think you maybe wrong, try TOOLS > PGP > PREFERENCES. There is the > option to Use PGP/MIME when sending e-mail. > Surely if it can send in that format, it can receive it as well? > It must have the capability, otherwise wha

Re: PGP signed attachment with extension "att"

Hello Batters, MDP> Pass - try out the option and let us know! NA> When you say you finally got things working for you, did you mean NA> PGP/MIME? TB sure isn't listed as being PGP/MIME compliant, and will not NA> interpret those messages using the external PGP, so I was interested in NA> knowin

Re: PGP signed attachment with extension "att"

This message: 11/04/2000 20:48 GMT. Tuesday, April 11, 2000, 9:09:14 PM, Nick wrote: NA> I may be wrong, but I don't think having the senders Public Key (which NA> he probably has anyway) is going to make any difference, because the NA> message was sent using PGP/MIME, and TB! doesn't know

Re: PGP signed attachment with extension "att"

Hello Marek Mikus, Responding to your article on Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 20:31:50 GMT +0200 (which was 12/04/2000 1:31 GMT +0700 my Local Time) : MM> I received attachment with extension "att" which sent me friend from MM> ELM mailer. This message is PGP signed and encrypted. I saw it, if

Re: PGP signed attachment with extension "att"

Hi CaLViN, On 11 April 2000 at 22:42:21 GMT +0200 (which was 21:42 where I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote and made these points on the subject of "PGP signed attachment with extension "att"": NA>> The message was encrypted and signed using PGP/MIME, and AFAIK, NA>> TB! isn't PGP/MIME enabl

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >