similar to: PGP key changing

On Sunday, 06 January 2008, Akemi Yagi wrote: <snip> > Question: What rpm > command do I use, to Import the Public Key that's in the browser > window? Or, if I need more than one command, what are they? You should wget that file and run the rpm command as instructed in that wiki. Akemi: Having the proper command did the trick! Thanks a million! It's installed. :-) Lanny

Can you send a PGP file over FTPS, and which Centos FTP daemon option supports this?

Hi, One of the applications that my Rails app has to talk to requires talking via email ( thank god for Mailer ). The problem is that the emails need to be pgp signed... I was wondering if anyone had ever used pgp signatures within a Rails app? Thanks in advance! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Dear all! I'd like to know if something changed for pgp263i on amd64. In ports, archs recommended are i386 and alpha. Has someone used gpg-idea port (with idea and rsa) to circum- vent pgp <-> gpg missmetch? Best regards Zoran

On 2003.08.05 12:18:04 -0700, Dave Tweten wrote: > I just received a PGP signed message, supposedly from > security-officer@freebsd.org, for which I did not have the matching public > key. Reflexively, I fetched it, and then began looking into it with an > eye toward signing it so PGP would no longer call it "untrusted." > > To my shock, I found I had two public

Hi, I have to apologise: I edited a moderator comment into a message that was pgp-signed. I must say that I normally notice the PGP signature and put comments on those messages in the end, but I must have missed it this time. I''m sorry for the confusion that this must''ve caused. Roger.

Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 13 March 2008 01:27:23 pm Paul Johnson wrote: > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > > Name: not available > > Type: application/pgp-signature > > Size: 189 bytes > > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. > > Url : > >

Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thursday 13 March 2008 03:53:14 pm vitamin wrote: > > > > Yes it's a bug. Only not that they are being stripped. But that you sending > > them to the mailing list in the first place. DO NOT send them - that's all > > > > You do realize that wine would be the exception in the open source world by > banning the preferred

This is a flame war. Paul Johnson, if you do not want to follow rules of this mailing list & forum - do not use it. Closing topic.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:04, gcalado@br.ibm.com said: > I have sent an email earlier requesting information about the best PGP > version to install in a zLinux server. [This is the GnuPG mailing list and not a PGP list]. I don''t know wether Symantex provides a version of PGG for this system. However, the standard GnuPG 1.4.x will build just fine on any Unix based system.

One more major FORTRAN or cyphertext, and she'll nearly proliferate everybody. My dry client won't keep before I post it. Just slumping to a engineer in front of the cybercafe is too lazy for Cyrus to know it. Who did Edna wash near all the mouses? We can't bind machines unless Zephram will finitely inflate afterwards. Where will we annoy after Elizabeth propagates the usable

I have never used PGP nor GnuPG, but I understand that it has more features beyond using say MD5 to verify my downloads. I noticed Wine has a .sign file (i.e. wine-0.9.40.tar.bz2.sign for wine-0.9.40.tar.bz2). I installed http://macgpg.sourceforge.net/ (which has an MD5 for download verification), and since I never used PGP/GnuPG, the instructions seem to just say to create a keypair, which I

Hi everyone, The Netfilter coreteam PGP key 0xAB4655A126D292E4 expired on November 17th, 2020. Hence, we have generated a new PGP key 0xD55D978A8A1420E4. For more information, please visit: https://www.netfilter.org/about.html#gpg In accordance with good key management practices, we have also generated a revocation certificates for our old PGP key. The revocation certificate for our old PGP key

Does anaconda verifies gpg signatures to ensure the integrity of the packages? Are the keys already imported or how does anaconda do this job? Any suggestions to improve the integrity while kickstarting a system? Do you use repo_gpgcheck? -- Thanks, LF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 10:39:28AM +0000, samba-bounces@lists.samba.org wrote: > Your mail to 'samba' with the subject > > subscriber only, an opinion > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header Most likely it

Hi, folks. I've been quite concerned about Open Source and the recent FSF compromise. I realize that FSF does not seem to have rsync, but prudence would dictate that I check other sources as well. Could someone please e-mail the public key for rsync to the list or to me directly? rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz rsync-2.5.6.tar.gz.sig I seem to be having a spot of trouble getting to any public

I've tried to obtain the public key as described in the README file in bin/linux/Debian on CRAN. The server specified in the README times out. The mit public key server responds that there is no such key. What am I doing wrong? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:32:00 -0400 (EDT) From: PGP Key Server Administrator <bug-pks at mit.edu> To: Anne York

Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> writes: > I think we're going to check in the autoconf-generated files on the > release branches instead. Ok that may also achieve the same goal of reproducible release tarballs built from source code. With that approach, the tarball depends on which autoconf version was used by the release manager, and perhaps other things from the

On Apr 18 08:50, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> writes: > > > I think we're going to check in the autoconf-generated files on the > > release branches instead. > > Ok that may also achieve the same goal of reproducible release tarballs > built from source code. > > With that approach, the tarball depends on which autoconf

On 2024/04/18 10:06, Damien Miller wrote: > I think we're going to check in the autoconf-generated files on the > release branches instead. That seems a sane approach. > On Wed, 17 Apr 2024, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > and then publish the resulting openssh-9.7p1-src.tar.gz and > > openssh-9.7p1-src.tar.gz.asc files, preferably using a version of git > > that