Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users Expecially if your trying to mix PGP and GNUPG. NOTE Evolution which I use has gone off the standard path with attachment signatures. For inline I just cut and paste into Kgpg to bypass the problem. CWSIV On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 14:52, C Hamel wrote:

On Sunday 29 February 2004 16:38, James Knott wrote:

...

C Hamel wrote:

...

An acquintance & I are attempting some encryption. I am able to decrypt his notes but he cannot decrypt mine. We both have keys and have signed each others' key; I am encrypting using the recipient's key, yet he cannot decrypt my note.

I certainly could use some guidance. I have already RTFM on several occasions and there is something I am certain that is getting by me.

Thanks...

Well, if we're to have any chance of helping you, it would be nice if you mentioned what you're using for encryption, what you've done, what results etc. Thanks for telling me what you need. :-) Here it is.

We're using gpg, DSA algorithm, length of1024. When I encrypt I use the key he sent me --and I signed-- yet he cannot decrypt what I've sent.

If you need more info, please tell me what you require & I'll do my best to supply it. :-)

PGP is the standard with inline signatures. Its Evolution which is off track. But manageable with Kgpg. I am on the encryption lists and they do know what the standards are. Attachments get lost and become corrupt far too easily to be standard and there is no agreement as to how to handle them. If there is a standard its a broken one. CWSIV On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 17:26, Charles Philip Chan wrote:

On 01 Mar 2004 17:24:57 -0800 Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

NOTE Evolution which I use has gone off the standard path with attachment signatures.

Huh, pgp-mime is a standard- rfc 2015:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2015.txt

Charles

On 03 Mar 2004 15:49:34 -0800

Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

PGP is the standard with inline signatures. Its Evolution which is off track.

I don't think so. We live in an international world- inline signing/encrypting have problems with non-ascii character sets. Also pgp/mime is crucial for signing/encrypting messages with attachments.

...

and there is no agreement as to how to handle them.

rfc 2015 (1996): http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2015.txt rfc 3156 (2001): http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3156.txt

...

Its Evolution which is off track.

Sylpheed-main's and claws's authors also refuse to support inline signing/encrypting.

You might want to refer to this page:

http://www.bretschneidernet.de/tips/secmua.html.en

Charles Why is it that kmail doesn't use 'inline' as the default? One has to continually choose it because the plugin is the default. Personally, I think

On Wednesday 03 March 2004 18:32, Charles Philip Chan wrote: that may be most of my problem --that of not knowing which to use --or how. Hope I get my PW soon... finally got the confirmation e-mail. :-) -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

On Wednesday 03 March 2004 20:08, Charles Philip Chan wrote: <SNIP>

For encrypted messages as long as the person you are sending to doesn't use Outhouse or Outhouse Express- you should be fine with pgp/mime. For signed messages, Outhouse (not express) users can still see the message- they just can't verify it.

Charles The problem I am running into is that I can receive the particular sender's e-mail & decrypt it; he cannot decrypt mine, however. We have compared settings both in KGpg & kmail and they seem to be identical. I use his key to encrypt to him, he uses my key for like purpose. What could be simpler! But does it work?? :-\ Zip, zero, nada. -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

torsdag 04 mars 2004 04:03 skrev C Hamel:

...

The problem I am running into is that I can receive the particular sender's e-mail & decrypt it; he cannot decrypt mine, however. We have compared settings both in KGpg & kmail and they seem to be identical. I use his key to encrypt to him, he uses my key for like purpose. What could be simpler! But does it work?? :-\ Zip, zero, nada.

Well, first things first ... you need to export your key to a keyserver. You haven't, so my kmail just says: "No open key, to verify signature". You're probably using his "private" key to encrypt, in which case he can't decrypt it ... except with his public key, which of course isn't the way it's done. I have exported my key to all three keyservers listed in kgpg. As for the encryption problem I am using the key he sent, and I've signed it. I sent him my public key and he has no problems decrypting my msgs. I gather that I am apparently doing everything right ...but with the wrong key. Would you

On Thursday 04 March 2004 05:20, Örn Hansen wrote: please enlighten me as to how, exactly, it is done? Thanks... -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:28:08PM -0500 or thereabouts, Charles Philip Chan wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:32:57 -0500 Charles Philip Chan wrote:

...

Sylpheed-main's and claws's authors also refuse to support inline signing/encrypting.

I should qualify that. Claws does support inline signing/encrypting but not varifying/decrypting (although it can be done through an "Action").

here is an up-to-date list of MUAs that support PGP/MIME (RFC3156), as opposed to the outdated in-line PGP signing method. http://www.spinnaker.de/mutt/rfc2015.html -- Gary Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage

Outdated until you have to interoperate. Myself I will continue to interoperate for now. Between two evolution users its quite convient to have a simple click to verify a message. Perhaps a sompler solution would be to port evolution to win32 so they could have our superior filtering etc. But for now interoperation is needed. CWSIV On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 17:49, Gary wrote:

here is an up-to-date list of MUAs that support PGP/MIME (RFC3156), as opposed to the outdated in-line PGP signing method.

http://www.spinnaker.de/mutt/rfc2015.html

On Monday 01 March 2004 19:24, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

<SNIP> Nobody is home on that site. Subscribed, yesterday, no answer. Tried to log onto the site today, site's broken. -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

On Wednesday 03 March 2004 17:49, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

Its up now sometimes they get attacked and shut down.

CWSIV

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 08:10, C Hamel wrote:

...

On Monday 01 March 2004 19:24, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

...

Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

<SNIP>

Nobody is home on that site. Subscribed, yesterday, no answer. Tried to log onto the site today, site's broken. Yep... they're back up. <G> -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

On Thursday 04 March 2004 16:06, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

Please join us much of the issues are interoperability with the original and now saddly not as open sourced product. Personally by going directly to gnupg for both windows and *nix you save much of the problem.

CWSIV I'd love to... I have yet to get my PW or receive a single msg from that forum, however. I did confirm, but I attempted to contact the listmaster it was returned as undeliverable. -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 March 2004 21:18, Carl William Spitzer IV wrote:

Its a slow list barely a few hundred messages a month. Introduce yourself and ask some questions.

CWSIV

<SNIP> We finally did get the encryption working. We're wondering about file encryption, if there is a work-around to the fact that in-line won't do it, apparently. - -- ...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFASVUoamdq40EXXvQRArN3AJ4h2HESXmk/T3CrQiMWdJ9F7jXhOQCgqlTa nbJt1A+XcnqNaU0sigpbuVM= =92Wf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 05 March 2004 22:45, Gary wrote:

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 10:35:52PM -0600 or thereabouts, C Hamel wrote:

...

<SNIP>

That's the difference between the older style of encryption, versus PGP/MIME. The latter will automatically encrypt all attachments, as well as the original email without you thinking about it. If you choose the older method, the only choice is to encrypt the files separately before attaching them to the email. -- Gary

Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage Actually, we did attemtp that --right-clicked on a file & encrypted. Other side couldn't decrypt because the encryption auto-uses one's own key, and I can't seem to find a way around *that*. <LOL> Also attempted copying to clipboard & doing the dirty deed, and still no dice.

...CH SuSE Is All U Need Linux user# 313696 Linux box# 199365 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFASd2Namdq40EXXvQRAoKrAKCRzaiqnibIlPVdou5PIsTq5gb8PACeO8JZ osqEKSCgYT4Zyy9E2QLPiY4= =KaZR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----