quoth Felix Miata:
|xorg is a meta-package. You should be able to remove it without affecting TDE or |Xorg operation.
So I can safely go ahead and let all the stuff get deleted and it won't affect the operation of TDE? (The list I posted earlier?)
What puzzles me is why none of this stuff appears in autoremove or remove lists otherwise.
dep
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email. Because privacy matters.
dep composed on 2018-04-28 12:02 (UTC-0400):
quoth Felix Miata:
|xorg is a meta-package. You should be able to remove it without affecting TDE or |Xorg operation.
So I can safely go ahead and let all the stuff get deleted and it won't affect the operation of TDE? (The list I posted earlier?)
I purposely made no suggestion about any of the other packages in those lists. There are several *trinity* packages in the autoremove list. I suggest you manually (re-)*install* those so that they are removed from the automatically installed db. Then go ahead and autoremove. If you missed any, add them back manually. Obviously if you only use English you won't need the non-EN ttf packages
What puzzles me is why none of this stuff appears in autoremove or remove lists otherwise.
Maybe if we saw your sources.list we might be able to suggest a reason. I just booted 14.04.5 (with DE KDE only) and updated sources. Subsequently, aptitude was unable to locate protonmail*.
Maybe what you need is to let go of 14.04. What does it have that you can't have from 16.04 LTS, Jessie or Stretch, from which you should expect less trouble with QT4 or QT5 issues?
I recently migrated two 14.04 installations to 16.04. I only have two 14.04 left, one running KDE, the other Cinnamon & Mate, no way I could expect to replicate your dilemma here.
What source provides protonmail?
Felix Miata wrote:
Maybe if we saw your sources.list we might be able to suggest a reason. I just booted 14.04.5 (with DE KDE only) and updated sources. Subsequently, aptitude was unable to locate protonmail*.
This is also my suspicion, Felix. I bet the sources.list is tweaked or broken.
regards
So I can safely go ahead and let all the stuff get deleted and it won't affect the operation of TDE? (The list I posted earlier?)
NO, never do what that brainless apt suggests to delete or remove automatically!! Install aptitude (maybe synaptic does the same, I have no experience with it) and then try to remove the first suggested package. Aptitude either accepts it or, more likely, signals in bright red what other packages this removal will affect. Examine these with "e" and only if you are very! sure, that you won't need these mentioned packages allow the removal by clicking piece by piece all those other packages. Mind you, that spending here some minutes may save you later a lot of time for repairing a broken system. Regards, Peter.
phiebie@tele2.at wrote:
NO, never do what that brainless apt suggests to delete or remove automatically!! Install aptitude
I don't agree with you. If you keep your desk clean, apt or apt-get is working just fine. It gets confused, when there is dirt on the way, so each time it suggests something you think is inappropriate, ask yourself, if there is something wrong, with what you are trying to do. I've never used aptitude in the 16y I am using debian, so do not oppose your opinion as the only valid and also do not make such statements please (brainless) - there is quite a lot of development (brain) work behind the tools.
regards
On Saturday 28 April 2018 09:45:42 Felix Miata wrote:
dep composed on 2018-04-28 12:02 (UTC-0400):
quoth Felix Miata: |xorg is a meta-package. You should be able to remove it without | affecting TDE or Xorg operation.
So I can safely go ahead and let all the stuff get deleted and it won't affect the operation of TDE? (The list I posted earlier?)
I purposely made no suggestion about any of the other packages in those lists. There are several *trinity* packages in the autoremove list. I suggest you manually (re-)*install* those so that they are removed from the automatically installed db. Then go ahead and autoremove. If you missed any, add them back manually. Obviously if you only use English you won't need the non-EN ttf packages
What puzzles me is why none of this stuff appears in autoremove or remove lists otherwise.
Maybe if we saw your sources.list we might be able to suggest a reason. I just booted 14.04.5 (with DE KDE only) and updated sources. Subsequently, aptitude was unable to locate protonmail*.
Maybe what you need is to let go of 14.04. What does it have that you can't have from 16.04 LTS, Jessie or Stretch, from which you should expect less trouble with QT4 or QT5 issues?
I recently migrated two 14.04 installations to 16.04. I only have two 14.04 left, one running KDE, the other Cinnamon & Mate, no way I could expect to replicate your dilemma here.
What source provides protonmail?
The only deb package available for the protonmail bridge (to the best of my knowledge) can be found here: https://protonmail.com/download/protonmail-bridge_1.0.3-1_amd64.deb
By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only available for paid accounts.
Ubuntu and Debian are not quite interchangeable, and I found that a lot of packages that were problematic before (when I ran Kubuntu, up until 16.04) are no longer a problem in Debian.
Bill
William Morder wrote:
By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only available for paid accounts.
Which version of kmail? IF it is refereing to KDE >v4 it will not be compatible with TDEs kmail and hearing wayland, it looks like so.
regards
negative. current stock tde. running atop ubuntu 14.04. the reference to wayland came up in an apt error at the beginning of all this.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:55 PM, deloptes deloptes@gmail.com wrote:
William Morder wrote: > By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. > However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no > 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only > available for paid accounts. Which version of kmail? IF it is refereing to KDE >v4 it will not be compatible with TDEs kmail and hearing wayland, it looks like so. regards --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Saturday 28 April 2018 18:11:16 dep wrote:
negative. current stock tde. running atop ubuntu 14.04. the reference to wayland came up in an apt error at the beginning of all this.
You need to be more explicit, there re, or were, 2 different versions of TDE, I jumped straight to R14.0.0.1 originally, and never looked back, currently at R14.0.5. So I don't recall the other version offered.
And while kmail still has some head scratchers, like revereting its last message pointers to the beginning of a list as I have one list that starts in 2002. which can be startling because the message is from a different era.
But with my scripts making use of fetchmail and procmail, spamassassin, plus clamav for filtering spam and viri, kmail go longer goes away while its out checking my isp for new mail. That 30+ second freeze is now a half second when I notice it. Thats entirely tolerable.
What does this protonmail do that makes it so much more desirable?
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:55 PM, deloptes deloptes@gmail.com wrote:
William Morder wrote: > By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. > However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no > 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only > available for paid accounts. Which version of kmail? IF it is refereing to KDE >v4 it will not be compatible with TDEs kmail and hearing wayland, it looks like so. regards
- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Saturday 28 April 2018 15:45:17 Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 28 April 2018 18:11:16 dep wrote:
negative. current stock tde. running atop ubuntu 14.04. the reference to wayland came up in an apt error at the beginning of all this.
You need to be more explicit, there re, or were, 2 different versions of TDE, I jumped straight to R14.0.0.1 originally, and never looked back, currently at R14.0.5. So I don't recall the other version offered.
And while kmail still has some head scratchers, like revereting its last message pointers to the beginning of a list as I have one list that starts in 2002. which can be startling because the message is from a different era.
But with my scripts making use of fetchmail and procmail, spamassassin, plus clamav for filtering spam and viri, kmail go longer goes away while its out checking my isp for new mail. That 30+ second freeze is now a half second when I notice it. Thats entirely tolerable.
What does this protonmail do that makes it so much more desirable?
So far it's the best option for private, secure email. You'll have to do some reading about it (and compare with other email services) to know why. Either you want end-to-end encryption, and other privacy/security features, or you don't (yet) care that much.
My only other option seems to be to roll my own (that is, host my own email server on my own machine). I know of several people who do that (such as Richard Stallman, if I recall), but it's a pain in the behind, and a lot of work just to host your own email accounts with your own domain, etc.
I will try to make some enquiries about what is involved, if anybody else really wants to know. So far, I've just been doing a lot of reading, and it seems a little too much trouble. In lieu of that kind of hassle, then, there is ProtonMail.
Bill
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:55 PM, deloptes deloptes@gmail.com wrote:
William Morder wrote: > By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. > However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no > 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only > available for paid accounts. Which version of kmail? IF it is refereing to KDE >v4 it will not be compatible with TDEs kmail and hearing wayland, it looks like so. regards
- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
William Morder wrote:
So far it's the best option for private, secure email. You'll have to do some reading about it (and compare with other email services) to know why. Either you want end-to-end encryption, and other privacy/security features, or you don't (yet) care that much.
My only other option seems to be to roll my own (that is, host my own email server on my own machine). I know of several people who do that (such as Richard Stallman, if I recall), but it's a pain in the behind, and a lot of work just to host your own email accounts with your own domain, etc.
I will try to make some enquiries about what is involved, if anybody else really wants to know. So far, I've just been doing a lot of reading, and it seems a little too much trouble. In lieu of that kind of hassle, then, there is ProtonMail.
You are welcome to use the hosting service of a friend or so. If you don't have such, we have one here, just let me know. I pay for 5 domains 140/y.
What I do not understand in the whole picture is how you get "encryption end to end" - it means the other end must also be encrypted. So what is the difference between this ProtonMail and using normal GnuPG.
regards
On Saturday 28 April 2018 23:33:39 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
So far it's the best option for private, secure email. You'll have to do some reading about it (and compare with other email services) to know why. Either you want end-to-end encryption, and other privacy/security features, or you don't (yet) care that much.
My only other option seems to be to roll my own (that is, host my own email server on my own machine). I know of several people who do that (such as Richard Stallman, if I recall), but it's a pain in the behind, and a lot of work just to host your own email accounts with your own domain, etc.
I will try to make some enquiries about what is involved, if anybody else really wants to know. So far, I've just been doing a lot of reading, and it seems a little too much trouble. In lieu of that kind of hassle, then, there is ProtonMail.
You are welcome to use the hosting service of a friend or so. If you don't have such, we have one here, just let me know. I pay for 5 domains 140/y.
Thanks, but no money to spend at present.
What I do not understand in the whole picture is how you get "encryption end to end" - it means the other end must also be encrypted. So what is the difference between this ProtonMail and using normal GnuPG.
I think the problem here (and in another email you answer to somebody else, dep, I think) is the conflation of two ideas: 1. end-to-end encryption (which you're right, Kmail offers, but you have to do some work yourself, whereas Proton is encrypted by default); and 2. a secure email service where all emails are encrypted, and content or contact information cannot be read even by the admins. And it is much better to download emails to my own computer, rather than to leave them on the server where they could be read by who knows?
Gmail, for example, can be used with Kmail, and properly encrypted; but if any emails are left on the server, all data is gathered and reused by Google, as I have discovered myself due to some targeted ads - which were obviously related to recent emails that I had received.
Our querent here, dep, as a journalist, would like to keep his sources and contacts confidential. And while I am not a journalist as such, I am engaged in research and writing (mostly history, anthropology, etc.), which, in the wrong hands, might be twisted and misused to make my work appear to be something it is not.
Lavabit used to offer a similar service, and got shut down. ProtonMail, because they are located in Switzerland, promise (or hope) not to succumb to pressure to snoop on users, or to create backdoors, etc.
I have no clue if they are as good as they promise, but my mode of operation is first to do a little research, then usually to try them out, and find out by experience. Until I get a 32-bit bridge package and a free account, ProtonMail is out for me, but I'll be watching what others have to say.
Someday, we can only hope, secure, private emails will be the norm, rather than the exceptions.
Bill
William Morder wrote:
On Saturday 28 April 2018 23:33:39 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
So far it's the best option for private, secure email. You'll have to do some reading about it (and compare with other email services) to know why. Either you want end-to-end encryption, and other privacy/security features, or you don't (yet) care that much.
My only other option seems to be to roll my own (that is, host my own email server on my own machine). I know of several people who do that (such as Richard Stallman, if I recall), but it's a pain in the behind, and a lot of work just to host your own email accounts with your own domain, etc.
I will try to make some enquiries about what is involved, if anybody else really wants to know. So far, I've just been doing a lot of reading, and it seems a little too much trouble. In lieu of that kind of hassle, then, there is ProtonMail.
You are welcome to use the hosting service of a friend or so. If you don't have such, we have one here, just let me know. I pay for 5 domains 140/y.
Thanks, but no money to spend at present.
What I do not understand in the whole picture is how you get "encryption end to end" - it means the other end must also be encrypted. So what is the difference between this ProtonMail and using normal GnuPG.
I think the problem here (and in another email you answer to somebody else, dep, I think) is the conflation of two ideas: 1. end-to-end encryption (which you're right, Kmail offers, but you have to do some work yourself, whereas Proton is encrypted by default); and 2. a secure email service where all emails are encrypted, and content or contact information cannot be read even by the admins. And it is much better to download emails to my own computer, rather than to leave them on the server where they could be read by who knows?
How is it encrypting by default, when it does not have access to your private key? You always provide password to use the private key. IF it is not the case, it is not secure - so I guess you somehow misunderstand what ProtonMail is (not that I understand properly what it is). In theory it is not possible to have encryption by default without providing the passphrase for the private key - all of this is supported in kmail - I can tell kmail to always encrypt for specific recipient(s).
Gmail, for example, can be used with Kmail, and properly encrypted; but if any emails are left on the server, all data is gathered and reused by Google, as I have discovered myself due to some targeted ads - which were obviously related to recent emails that I had received.
Our querent here, dep, as a journalist, would like to keep his sources and contacts confidential. And while I am not a journalist as such, I am engaged in research and writing (mostly history, anthropology, etc.), which, in the wrong hands, might be twisted and misused to make my work appear to be something it is not.
Did you try OTR? AFAIK it is the one that journalists use and I think OTR is also supported in Kopete, but there are also other tools. You basically don't communicate things via mail except when to meet someone and where - that's it.
Lavabit used to offer a similar service, and got shut down. ProtonMail, because they are located in Switzerland, promise (or hope) not to succumb to pressure to snoop on users, or to create backdoors, etc.
Yes I think a friend was looking into it because it is in Switzerland. But this has nothing to do with the way how encryption works. So I think you have to distinguish between location of mail server and actual encryption.
I have no clue if they are as good as they promise, but my mode of operation is first to do a little research, then usually to try them out, and find out by experience. Until I get a 32-bit bridge package and a free account, ProtonMail is out for me, but I'll be watching what others have to say.
Someday, we can only hope, secure, private emails will be the norm, rather than the exceptions.
I follow GnuPGP since I uplifted kpgp to gnupg2 last year and there are discussions in making keys distribution more accessbile. In fact they did change few things regarding sks lately and it is much easier to find the public keys of some one to import and encrypt. Finally you have to have your servers under your control - anything else is not likely to be secure enough - even in Switzerland, although it is much better than somewhere else, it does not guarantee much.
To sum up - you have few additional steps when using TDEs kmail+kpgp, but it is for free.
Starting a new thread, since this is going into new territory.
On Monday 30 April 2018 00:21:23 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
On Saturday 28 April 2018 23:33:39 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
So far it's the best option for private, secure email. You'll have to do some reading about it (and compare with other email services) to know why. Either you want end-to-end encryption, and other privacy/security features, or you don't (yet) care that much.
My only other option seems to be to roll my own (that is, host my own email server on my own machine). I know of several people who do that (such as Richard Stallman, if I recall), but it's a pain in the behind, and a lot of work just to host your own email accounts with your own domain, etc.
I will try to make some enquiries about what is involved, if anybody else really wants to know. So far, I've just been doing a lot of reading, and it seems a little too much trouble. In lieu of that kind of hassle, then, there is ProtonMail.
You are welcome to use the hosting service of a friend or so. If you don't have such, we have one here, just let me know. I pay for 5 domains 140/y.
Thanks, but no money to spend at present.
What I do not understand in the whole picture is how you get "encryption end to end" - it means the other end must also be encrypted. So what is the difference between this ProtonMail and using normal GnuPG.
I think the problem here (and in another email you answer to somebody else, dep, I think) is the conflation of two ideas: 1. end-to-end encryption (which you're right, Kmail offers, but you have to do some work yourself, whereas Proton is encrypted by default); and 2. a secure email service where all emails are encrypted, and content or contact information cannot be read even by the admins. And it is much better to download emails to my own computer, rather than to leave them on the server where they could be read by who knows?
How is it encrypting by default, when it does not have access to your private key? You always provide password to use the private key. IF it is not the case, it is not secure - so I guess you somehow misunderstand what ProtonMail is (not that I understand properly what it is). In theory it is not possible to have encryption by default without providing the passphrase for the private key - all of this is supported in kmail - I can tell kmail to always encrypt for specific recipient(s).
Gmail, for example, can be used with Kmail, and properly encrypted; but if any emails are left on the server, all data is gathered and reused by Google, as I have discovered myself due to some targeted ads - which were obviously related to recent emails that I had received.
Our querent here, dep, as a journalist, would like to keep his sources and contacts confidential. And while I am not a journalist as such, I am engaged in research and writing (mostly history, anthropology, etc.), which, in the wrong hands, might be twisted and misused to make my work appear to be something it is not.
Did you try OTR? AFAIK it is the one that journalists use and I think OTR is also supported in Kopete, but there are also other tools. You basically don't communicate things via mail except when to meet someone and where - that's it.
Lavabit used to offer a similar service, and got shut down. ProtonMail, because they are located in Switzerland, promise (or hope) not to succumb to pressure to snoop on users, or to create backdoors, etc.
Yes I think a friend was looking into it because it is in Switzerland. But this has nothing to do with the way how encryption works. So I think you have to distinguish between location of mail server and actual encryption.
I have no clue if they are as good as they promise, but my mode of operation is first to do a little research, then usually to try them out, and find out by experience. Until I get a 32-bit bridge package and a free account, ProtonMail is out for me, but I'll be watching what others have to say.
Someday, we can only hope, secure, private emails will be the norm, rather than the exceptions.
I follow GnuPGP since I uplifted kpgp to gnupg2 last year and there are discussions in making keys distribution more accessbile. In fact they did change few things regarding sks lately and it is much easier to find the public keys of some one to import and encrypt. Finally you have to have your servers under your control - anything else is not likely to be secure enough - even in Switzerland, although it is much better than somewhere else, it does not guarantee much.
To sum up - you have few additional steps when using TDEs kmail+kpgp, but it is for free.
I think that's what I said. There are two (or maybe three) different issues here, which it seems are getting conflated by how we keep talking about it. Number 1 is encrypting our own emails sent by TDE's version of Kmail, using our own private keys. Number 2 is using an encrypted email service, which not only encrypts emails in transit, but also encrypts everything on the server, as well as Number 3, (which was pointed out by others) encrypting headers, addresses, etc.
My own problem is that I have correspondents who talk about wanting to use encryption, but don't seem to know how to do it. I can send encrypted emails, but they don't seem to be able to read them. They can send encrypted emails, but then I can't read them. And those who claim to know what they are doing are generally too busy to spend time on getting it right.
So perhaps a few of us (here on the TDE list) could work this out among themselves, if they can find somebody that they trust?
Otherwise, you have right there the need for using ProtonMail or a similar email service.
Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
William Morder wrote:
I think that's what I said. There are two (or maybe three) different issues here, which it seems are getting conflated by how we keep talking about it. Number 1 is encrypting our own emails sent by TDE's version of Kmail, using our own private keys. Number 2 is using an encrypted email service, which not only encrypts emails in transit, but also encrypts everything on the server, as well as Number 3, (which was pointed out by others) encrypting headers, addresses, etc.
How does this would differ in terms of security compared to SSL/TLS? The mail servers already use TLS. If you don't control the private key, you don't control the readers, so IMO it is not a point
My own problem is that I have correspondents who talk about wanting to use encryption, but don't seem to know how to do it. I can send encrypted emails, but they don't seem to be able to read them. They can send encrypted emails, but then I can't read them. And those who claim to know what they are doing are generally too busy to spend time on getting it right.
Not only your problem, but we can not force anyone to use something - if they want, they can. If they can not - they don't want. My personal experience shows that people that really need it, also use it.
So perhaps a few of us (here on the TDE list) could work this out among themselves, if they can find somebody that they trust?
This is the point. When you really want to trust someone, you probably would meet him/her and exchange keys face to face. Anything else is somehoe dubious - but can also work if the one can confirm his/her key. The point is that the verification can not be replaced by a machine or application. You and only you are entitled to mark the key as trusted.
I include my signature on purpose now. It does not make any sense to encrypt messages destined to the user group. But this is an example.
Otherwise, you have right there the need for using ProtonMail or a similar email service.
I still don't see any advantage, except that the server is secure and not under US or EU law. Which means the probability to shut it down, or confiscate it, like it happened in US is much lower.
regards
On Monday 30 April 2018 04:33:18 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
I think that's what I said. There are two (or maybe three) different issues here, which it seems are getting conflated by how we keep talking about it. Number 1 is encrypting our own emails sent by TDE's version of Kmail, using our own private keys. Number 2 is using an encrypted email service, which not only encrypts emails in transit, but also encrypts everything on the server, as well as Number 3, (which was pointed out by others) encrypting headers, addresses, etc.
How does this would differ in terms of security compared to SSL/TLS? The mail servers already use TLS. If you don't control the private key, you don't control the readers, so IMO it is not a point
The point is that not even the admins on ProtonMail can read the content of emails, or anything stored on their servers.
This is unlike Gmail (for example), who also use SSL and TLS, but obviously they have some kind of automated way to read the content of our emails and know who are all our correspondents.
And I don't imagine that my Zoho account (or any other) is much better in that regard. Zoho is better only in that they do not bother me with useless hoops to keep jumping through; whereas in the case of Gmail, I kept getting shut out of my own accounts, merely because I sometimes logged in from different locations.
My own problem is that I have correspondents who talk about wanting to use encryption, but don't seem to know how to do it. I can send encrypted emails, but they don't seem to be able to read them. They can send encrypted emails, but then I can't read them. And those who claim to know what they are doing are generally too busy to spend time on getting it right.
Not only your problem, but we can not force anyone to use something - if they want, they can. If they can not - they don't want. My personal experience shows that people that really need it, also use it.
Yeah, there's the rub. *SIGH*
So perhaps a few of us (here on the TDE list) could work this out among themselves, if they can find somebody that they trust?
This is the point. When you really want to trust someone, you probably would meet him/her and exchange keys face to face.
This is super-paranoid, yet also correct. I have various tricks for communicating, which do not depend on anything to do with computers or networks, but rather use items in the real physical world. (This is just for communicating in case of an emergency, when other means are not trusted.)
I just want to be sure that some of my friends, who live in places that are more dangerous than the US, UK or EU, do not suddenly disappear. What may seem perfectly innocent here is not necessarily perceived in the same way where they live.
Anything else is somehoe dubious - but can also work if the one can confirm his/her key. The point is that the verification can not be replaced by a machine or application. You and only you are entitled to mark the key as trusted.
I include my signature on purpose now. It does not make any sense to encrypt messages destined to the user group. But this is an example.
Otherwise, you have right there the need for using ProtonMail or a similar email service.
I still don't see any advantage, except that the server is secure and not under US or EU law. Which means the probability to shut it down, or confiscate it, like it happened in US is much lower.
regards
Well, at least your email came through here as an encrypted message. But yes, it makes no sense to use encryption for the mailing list (except for testing purposes, which is what I meant). All our messages here are published online, for anybody anywhere to read.
I have generated my key, but somehow or other Kmail doesn't want to send when it is signed and/or encrypted.
Bill
William Morder wrote:
The point is that not even the admins on ProtonMail can read the content of emails, or anything stored on their servers.
This is unlike Gmail (for example), who also use SSL and TLS, but obviously they have some kind of automated way to read the content of our emails and know who are all our correspondents.
so let us take this important argument: when server sends mail, you automatically know where it goes to - how would this happen if you don't know the correspondents. It would be enough to use a server under your control, so that only you know where it goes. I am not aware that there is a way to send to recipient, without knowing who the recipient is. Perhaps imagine the standard post system - you put the address on the envelope. Google as a postman is a b*tch that opens and reads your mail, but if it is encrypted, they still will not be able to read it without your or the recipients private key.
I still do not get the point here.
And I don't imagine that my Zoho account (or any other) is much better in that regard. Zoho is better only in that they do not bother me with useless hoops to keep jumping through; whereas in the case of Gmail, I kept getting shut out of my own accounts, merely because I sometimes logged in from different locations.
A domain costs 10-20 US$/year - a dedicated service for this domain about 100, so if it is important to you to have secure communication channel, you simply pay it and use it. If it is for free, then it comes on much higher cost - because you sell your data.
This is the point. When you really want to trust someone, you probably would meet him/her and exchange keys face to face.
This is super-paranoid, yet also correct. I have various tricks for communicating, which do not depend on anything to do with computers or networks, but rather use items in the real physical world. (This is just for communicating in case of an emergency, when other means are not trusted.)
I just want to be sure that some of my friends, who live in places that are more dangerous than the US, UK or EU, do not suddenly disappear. What may seem perfectly innocent here is not necessarily perceived in the same way where they live.
So you think US, UK, EU is more secure? I doubt it - it is everywhere the same. The participated illusion of safety is higher, but nothing else.
Well, at least your email came through here as an encrypted message. But yes, it makes no sense to use encryption for the mailing list (except for testing purposes, which is what I meant). All our messages here are published online, for anybody anywhere to read.
not encrypted, but signed - there is a difference ;-)
I have generated my key, but somehow or other Kmail doesn't want to send when it is signed and/or encrypted.
I don't get it - this has no will on it's own. You need to configure knode - it took me a while to get it. Not the general config, but for the specific account - under identity - when you set your key there, it should work.
In kmail it is under security and it is only for mail. I am also not sure if Slavek released the kgpg with gnupg2, or it is still somewhere in development, but we cleaned up a bit there as well. Anyway I was looking recently into this knode/kmail because I noticed that knode does not process messages when they are composed as mime encrypted/signed the same way as it does, when they are p/gpg signed, but kmail does process such messages. It was quite of an adventure. It smells like development work to do.
regards
On Monday 30 April 2018 07:07:47 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
The point is that not even the admins on ProtonMail can read the content of emails, or anything stored on their servers.
This is unlike Gmail (for example), who also use SSL and TLS, but obviously they have some kind of automated way to read the content of our emails and know who are all our correspondents.
so let us take this important argument: when server sends mail, you automatically know where it goes to - how would this happen if you don't know the correspondents. It would be enough to use a server under your control, so that only you know where it goes. I am not aware that there is a way to send to recipient, without knowing who the recipient is. Perhaps imagine the standard post system - you put the address on the envelope. Google as a postman is a b*tch that opens and reads your mail, but if it is encrypted, they still will not be able to read it without your or the recipients private key.
I still do not get the point here.
And I don't imagine that my Zoho account (or any other) is much better in that regard. Zoho is better only in that they do not bother me with useless hoops to keep jumping through; whereas in the case of Gmail, I kept getting shut out of my own accounts, merely because I sometimes logged in from different locations.
A domain costs 10-20 US$/year - a dedicated service for this domain about 100, so if it is important to you to have secure communication channel, you simply pay it and use it. If it is for free, then it comes on much higher cost - because you sell your data.
This is the point. When you really want to trust someone, you probably would meet him/her and exchange keys face to face.
This is super-paranoid, yet also correct. I have various tricks for communicating, which do not depend on anything to do with computers or networks, but rather use items in the real physical world. (This is just for communicating in case of an emergency, when other means are not trusted.)
I just want to be sure that some of my friends, who live in places that are more dangerous than the US, UK or EU, do not suddenly disappear. What may seem perfectly innocent here is not necessarily perceived in the same way where they live.
So you think US, UK, EU is more secure? I doubt it - it is everywhere the same. The participated illusion of safety is higher, but nothing else.
No, I believe that US, UK and EU generally use more surveillance of their citizens than many other nations. However, I can make innocent statements here on a wide range of subjects that (I hope) will not get me arrested, tortured, or "disappeared".
My friends who live in Africa, the Middle East, Russia, India, Pakistan, Singapore, etc., sometimes get upset when I speak a little too freely about what seem like trivial matters to me.
I am more concerned with their safety. Not that I don't worry about who reads my emails here in the US, but I am also somewhat more aware of how not to sound totally batshit crazy.
Well, at least your email came through here as an encrypted message. But yes, it makes no sense to use encryption for the mailing list (except for testing purposes, which is what I meant). All our messages here are published online, for anybody anywhere to read.
not encrypted, but signed - there is a difference ;-)
Yes, sorry. It is hard to read for me (yellow highlighting, and I use yellow text on dark background); but I get that message for signatures or encrypted messages.
I have generated my key, but somehow or other Kmail doesn't want to send when it is signed and/or encrypted.
I don't get it - this has no will on it's own. You need to configure knode
- it took me a while to get it. Not the general config, but for the
specific account - under identity - when you set your key there, it should work.
I just generated a new key (it automatically used Kleopatra), then saved it to a file. I'm not sure how it works for Kmail, but I was assuming it would be similar to, for example, using a key for something like Keypass. I use a password and a key file; I was guessing I could use my saved key to encrypt the email. I was hoping to test it first by sending emails to myself at alternate accounts.
In kmail it is under security and it is only for mail. I am also not sure if Slavek released the kgpg with gnupg2, or it is still somewhere in development, but we cleaned up a bit there as well. Anyway I was looking recently into this knode/kmail because I noticed that knode does not process messages when they are composed as mime encrypted/signed the same way as it does, when they are p/gpg signed, but kmail does process such messages. It was quite of an adventure. It smells like development work to do.
A whole range of choices to sort through.
Bill
William Morder wrote:
I just generated a new key (it automatically used Kleopatra), then saved it to a file. I'm not sure how it works for Kmail, but I was assuming it would be similar to, for example, using a key for something like Keypass. I use a password and a key file; I was guessing I could use my saved key to encrypt the email. I was hoping to test it first by sending emails to myself at alternate accounts.
You better try encrypting to yourself, as you would need a key for the other account as well. The easy test is to encrypt to yourself.
Yes indeed Kleopatra was the manager used by Kmail - I think it interfaces with gnupg. I prefer using Kgpg to create the keys.
regards
On Monday 30 April 2018 09:20:20 William Morder wrote:
On Monday 30 April 2018 04:33:18 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
I think that's what I said. There are two (or maybe three) different issues here, which it seems are getting conflated by how we keep talking about it. Number 1 is encrypting our own emails sent by TDE's version of Kmail, using our own private keys. Number 2 is using an encrypted email service, which not only encrypts emails in transit, but also encrypts everything on the server, as well as Number 3, (which was pointed out by others) encrypting headers, addresses, etc.
How does this would differ in terms of security compared to SSL/TLS? The mail servers already use TLS. If you don't control the private key, you don't control the readers, so IMO it is not a point
The point is that not even the admins on ProtonMail can read the content of emails, or anything stored on their servers.
This is unlike Gmail (for example), who also use SSL and TLS, but obviously they have some kind of automated way to read the content of our emails and know who are all our correspondents.
And I don't imagine that my Zoho account (or any other) is much better in that regard. Zoho is better only in that they do not bother me with useless hoops to keep jumping through; whereas in the case of Gmail, I kept getting shut out of my own accounts, merely because I sometimes logged in from different locations.
My own problem is that I have correspondents who talk about wanting to use encryption, but don't seem to know how to do it. I can send encrypted emails, but they don't seem to be able to read them. They can send encrypted emails, but then I can't read them. And those who claim to know what they are doing are generally too busy to spend time on getting it right.
Not only your problem, but we can not force anyone to use something
- if they want, they can. If they can not - they don't want. My
personal experience shows that people that really need it, also use it.
Yeah, there's the rub. *SIGH*
So perhaps a few of us (here on the TDE list) could work this out among themselves, if they can find somebody that they trust?
This is the point. When you really want to trust someone, you probably would meet him/her and exchange keys face to face.
This is super-paranoid, yet also correct. I have various tricks for communicating, which do not depend on anything to do with computers or networks, but rather use items in the real physical world. (This is just for communicating in case of an emergency, when other means are not trusted.)
I just want to be sure that some of my friends, who live in places that are more dangerous than the US, UK or EU, do not suddenly disappear. What may seem perfectly innocent here is not necessarily perceived in the same way where they live.
Anything else is somehoe dubious - but can also work if the one can confirm his/her key. The point is that the verification can not be replaced by a machine or application. You and only you are entitled to mark the key as trusted.
I include my signature on purpose now. It does not make any sense to encrypt messages destined to the user group. But this is an example.
Otherwise, you have right there the need for using ProtonMail or a similar email service.
I still don't see any advantage, except that the server is secure and not under US or EU law. Which means the probability to shut it down, or confiscate it, like it happened in US is much lower.
regards
Well, at least your email came through here as an encrypted message. But yes, it makes no sense to use encryption for the mailing list (except for testing purposes, which is what I meant). All our messages here are published online, for anybody anywhere to read.
I have generated my key, but somehow or other Kmail doesn't want to send when it is signed and/or encrypted.
Bill
Heck, I've fooled around because I do get signed messages, but I've yet to figure out how to get a successfull verification that the signage is correct. Setup needs help with setup. Humm, isn't that a circular dependency? ;-/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Heck, I've fooled around because I do get signed messages, but I've yet to figure out how to get a successfull verification that the signage is correct. Setup needs help with setup. Humm, isn't that a circular dependency? ;-/
You need to import the sender's public key.
Stefan
On Monday 30 April 2018 11:27:58 Stefan Krusche wrote:
Heck, I've fooled around because I do get signed messages, but I've yet to figure out how to get a successfull verification that the signage is correct. Setup needs help with setup. Humm, isn't that a circular dependency? ;-/
You need to import the sender's public key.
Is that buried in the kmail gpg menu's someplace? or a function of kgpg?
Stefan
Thanks Stefan.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Gene Heskett gheskett@shentel.net wrote:
On Monday 30 April 2018 11:27:58 Stefan Krusche wrote:
You need to import the sender's public key.
Is that buried in the kmail gpg menu's someplace? or a function of kgpg?
kgpg reads your keyrings, so you can use kgpg to import the key, or gpg directly.
However, Kmail does not like sending to or verifying with _untrusted_ keys.
There is a "list untrusted keys" setting, but it's more reliable to trust those people's keys you get signed email from.
One reason, maybe the primary reason, I use TDE is Kmail with mbox files which I can save, and search, with standard text tools, as well as easy gpg integration.
Reading this thread, I, too, have been frustrated by the general lack of anyone caring about encrypting their email. I'm using the Gmail web interface right now, there used to be a Firefox plug-in which encrypted/signed Gmail, but the developer simply could not keep up with how often Google "updated" (read: changed) the interface and broke his plug-in.
Curt-
On Monday 30 April 2018 13:17:43 Curt Howland wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Gene Heskett gheskett@shentel.net wrote:
On Monday 30 April 2018 11:27:58 Stefan Krusche wrote:
You need to import the sender's public key.
Is that buried in the kmail gpg menu's someplace? or a function of kgpg?
kgpg reads your keyrings, so you can use kgpg to import the key, or gpg directly.
However, Kmail does not like sending to or verifying with _untrusted_ keys.
There is a "list untrusted keys" setting, but it's more reliable to trust those people's keys you get signed email from.
One reason, maybe the primary reason, I use TDE is Kmail with mbox files which I can save, and search, with standard text tools, as well as easy gpg integration.
Reading this thread, I, too, have been frustrated by the general lack of anyone caring about encrypting their email. I'm using the Gmail web interface right now, there used to be a Firefox plug-in which encrypted/signed Gmail, but the developer simply could not keep up with how often Google "updated" (read: changed) the interface and broke his plug-in.
Curt-
Yeah, they read that Gmail is encrypted, or that this service now uses TLS as well as SSL, or that they offer this or that security feature, or promise more privacy; and then they think there is nothing more to do.
Everybody talks about encryption, but not many actually use it. And you can see why here: because encrypting all alone is like having sex all alone. Unless you do it together with others, it's just wanking.
Bill Bill
William Morder wrote:
Everybody talks about encryption, but not many actually use it. And you can see why here: because encrypting all alone is like having sex all alone. Unless you do it together with others, it's just wanking.
I think it is more or less about trust
On 2018-05-01 00:57:24 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
Everybody talks about encryption, but not many actually use it. And you can see why here: because encrypting all alone is like having sex all alone. Unless you do it together with others, it's just wanking.
I think it is more or less about trust
Trust of whom? Certainly one ought to be able to trust whomever one is corresponding with, but how can one trust all of the unknown intermediaries through whose hands one's messages pass?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Leslie Turriff jlturriff@mail.com wrote:
Trust of whom? Certainly one ought to be able to trust whomever one iscorresponding with, but how can one trust all of the unknown intermediaries through whose hands one's messages pass?
Thus BitMessage, a system in which no one trusts anyone else, and all the "meta data" such as who sent it and who it is for, is removed. But again, unfortunately, it ended up being useless, because encrypting alone may be good exercise, it's just very lonely.
Curt-
- -- The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage. - - Thucydides
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Curt Howland wrote:
Thus BitMessage, a system in which no one trusts anyone else, and all the "meta data" such as who sent it and who it is for, is removed. But again, unfortunately, it ended up being useless, because encrypting alone may be good exercise, it's just very lonely.
Curt-
Thanks. There seem to be great misunderstanding somewhere in the chain.
Leslie Turriff wrote:
Trust of whom? Certainly one ought to be able to trust whomever one is corresponding with, but how can one trust all of the unknown intermediaries through whose hands one's messages pass?
You trust the person, you get mail from and vice versa. There is no need to trust the path. The path for the message is not important. Important is that the content is not readable (compromised).
Another example - you know Enigma, perhaps. Everybody was listening, but no one could understand. And it worked so good until the cipher was broken.
regards
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:57 AM, deloptes deloptes@gmail.com wrote:
William Morder wrote:
Everybody talks about encryption, but not many actually use it. And you > can see why here: because encrypting all alone is like having sex all > alone. Unless you do it together with others, it's just wanking.
I think it is more or less about trust
in my case the catalyst was reducing the data harvesting my isp can do from my outgoing and incoming email. there is, as various here have noted, little way to prevent this entirely, but it can at least be made a little more inconvenient. thus, when my email leaves here it is encrypted, as it is when it arrives. on the other end it might not be, between the server and those with whom i am corresponding, but that goes into analytics as the mail from-to some guy in switzerland. i've added encrypted dns requests. the goal is like putting locks on the door of your house: it doesn't provide absolute protection, but it makes it mor profitable for the bad guys to look someplace else.
dep
On Tuesday 01 May 2018 04:57:11 dep wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:57 AM, deloptes deloptes@gmail.com wrote:
William Morder wrote:
Everybody talks about encryption, but not many actually use it. And you
can see why here: because encrypting all alone is like having sex all alone. Unless you do it together with others, it's just wanking.
I think it is more or less about trust
in my case the catalyst was reducing the data harvesting my isp can do from my outgoing and incoming email. there is, as various here have noted, little way to prevent this entirely, but it can at least be made a little more inconvenient. thus, when my email leaves here it is encrypted, as it is when it arrives. on the other end it might not be, between the server and those with whom i am corresponding, but that goes into analytics as the mail from-to some guy in switzerland. i've added encrypted dns requests. the goal is like putting locks on the door of your house: it doesn't provide absolute protection, but it makes it mor profitable for the bad guys to look someplace else.
dep
Look into using email over a secure shell. I had that running a few years ago, but since then I have gone through some changes, and it was too much trouble. However, I do know that it is possible. Of course, your email provider will still have access to some information; otherwise you couldn't use their service.
Bill
On May 1, 2018 11:57 AM, William Morder doctor_contendo@zoho.com wrote:
Look into using email over a secure shell. I had that running a few years ago, but since then I have gone through some changes, and it was too much trouble. However, I do know that it is possible. Of course, your email provider will still have access to some information; otherwise you couldn't use their service.
my issue is with my ISP, not my email provider which is protonmail. and it's currently set up such that my ISP gets nothing from my email, and i'm not using my ISP's email service, so whether or not i could is immaterial.
this all got started through my interest in setting up a protonmail-provided beta application that, when i get it installed and configured, will enable me to do all this with kmail as my frontend client. among the things into which it devolved are reasons one might want to try to secure email, how one-ended encryption is not useful for many purposes, the virtues or lack thereof of various package handlers, and now how i could do what i'm already successfully doing some other way if i'm willing to go to trouble that the current arrangement doesn't require.
all we need is someone to angrily belittle those who have not mastered emacs and we'll have the perfect linux mailing list thread!
dep
Am Dienstag 01 Mai 2018 schrieb dep:
this all got started through my interest in setting up a protonmail-provided beta application that, when i get it installed and configured, will enable me to do all this with kmail as my frontend client. among the things into which it devolved are reasons one might want to try to secure email, how one-ended encryption is not useful for many purposes, the virtues or lack thereof of various package handlers, and now how i could do what i'm already successfully doing some other way if i'm willing to go to trouble that the current arrangement doesn't require.
all we need is someone to angrily belittle those who have not mastered emacs and we'll have the perfect linux mailing list thread!
:-)
On Tuesday 01 May 2018 09:13:06 dep wrote:
On May 1, 2018 11:57 AM, William Morder doctor_contendo@zoho.com wrote:
Look into using email over a secure shell. I had that running a few years ago, but since then I have gone through some changes, and it was too much trouble. However, I do know that it is possible. Of course, your email provider will still have access to some information; otherwise you couldn't use their service.
my issue is with my ISP, not my email provider which is protonmail. and it's currently set up such that my ISP gets nothing from my email, and i'm not using my ISP's email service, so whether or not i could is immaterial.
this all got started through my interest in setting up a protonmail-provided beta application that, when i get it installed and configured, will enable me to do all this with kmail as my frontend client. among the things into which it devolved are reasons one might want to try to secure email, how one-ended encryption is not useful for many purposes, the virtues or lack thereof of various package handlers, and now how i could do what i'm already successfully doing some other way if i'm willing to go to trouble that the current arrangement doesn't require.
all we need is someone to angrily belittle those who have not mastered emacs and we'll have the perfect linux mailing list thread!
dep
I myself feel that we are fast approaching the Hitler/Nazi threshold. I will sound the warning now, in hopes that we might steer round that possibility.
Bill
Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2018 schrieb William Morder:
I myself feel that we are fast approaching the Hitler/Nazi threshold. I will sound the warning now, in hopes that we might steer round that possibility.
Bill
By mentioning the said magic words, did you actually trigger that threshold or did you not?
Nik
On 2018-05-01 13:47:27 Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2018 schrieb William Morder:
I myself feel that we are fast approaching the Hitler/Nazi threshold. I will sound the warning now, in hopes that we might steer round that possibility.
Bill
By mentioning the said magic words, did you actually trigger that threshold or did you not?
Nik
I think he might have. :-)
Leslie
On Tuesday 01 May 2018 11:47:27 Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2018 schrieb William Morder:
I myself feel that we are fast approaching the Hitler/Nazi threshold. I will sound the warning now, in hopes that we might steer round that possibility.
Bill
By mentioning the said magic words, did you actually trigger that threshold or did you not?
Nik
Oh, crap! It's like a paradox.
Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:35 PM, William Morder doctor_contendo@zoho.com wrote:
On Tuesday 01 May 2018 11:47:27 Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Mai 2018 schrieb William Morder:
I myself feel that we are fast approaching the Hitler/Nazi threshold. I will sound the warning now, in hopes that we might steer round that possibility.
Bill
By mentioning the said magic words, did you actually trigger that threshold or did you not?
Nik
Oh, crap! It's like a paradox.
The rule is only that the German Fascists will be brought up, not that it will end the discussion, or that reference will necessarily be incorrect. Only that it will occur. And it has.
Curt-
- -- The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage. - - Thucydides
On 05/01/2018 09:13 AM, dep wrote:
On May 1, 2018 11:57 AM, William Morder doctor_contendo@zoho.com wrote:
Look into using email over a secure shell. I had that running a few years ago, but since then I have gone through some changes, and it was too much trouble. However, I do know that it is possible. Of course, your email provider will still have access to some information; otherwise you couldn't use their service.
my issue is with my ISP, not my email provider which is protonmail. and it's currently set up such that my ISP gets nothing from my email, and i'm not using my ISP's email service, so whether or not i could is immaterial.
this all got started through my interest in setting up a protonmail-provided beta application that, when i get it installed and configured, will enable me to do all this with kmail as my frontend client. among the things into which it devolved are reasons one might want to try to secure email, how one-ended encryption is not useful for many purposes, the virtues or lack thereof of various package handlers, and now how i could do what i'm already successfully doing some other way if i'm willing to go to trouble that the current arrangement doesn't require.
all we need is someone to angrily belittle those who have not mastered emacs and we'll have the perfect linux mailing list thread!
Thanks for doing a proper post.
Cheers,
Gene Heskett wrote:
Is that buried in the kmail gpg menu's someplace? or a function of kgpg?
It's in Kgpg, Gene - I think you need to trust in some extent the key as well to be able to use it - at least this was the status before.
regards
Gene Heskett wrote:
Heck, I've fooled around because I do get signed messages, but I've yet to figure out how to get a successfull verification that the signage is correct. Setup needs help with setup. Humm, isn't that a circular dependency? ;-/
If you use Kmail or Knode it would do the work for you. You just need to maintain your keylists properly - perhaps in Kgpg. So as soon as you verify a key, you alter the key trust level - the next time you open an email signed with the key, it should show green, or yellow.
Otherwise you can use gpg on the command line to verify the message. The purpose of the signature is to verify that this is exactly the message, that was sent, so the whole message is passed trough gnupg. The signature can also be used to identify the public key of the sender
I don't see redundancy - just another level of work (likebehind the curtains).
regards
On Monday 30 April 2018 12:52:56 deloptes wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Heck, I've fooled around because I do get signed messages, but I've yet to figure out how to get a successfull verification that the signage is correct. Setup needs help with setup. Humm, isn't that a circular dependency? ;-/
If you use Kmail or Knode it would do the work for you. You just need to maintain your keylists properly - perhaps in Kgpg. So as soon as you verify a key, you alter the key trust level - the next time you open an email signed with the key, it should show green, or yellow.
Otherwise you can use gpg on the command line to verify the message. The purpose of the signature is to verify that this is exactly the message, that was sent, so the whole message is passed trough gnupg. The signature can also be used to identify the public key of the sender
I don't see redundancy - just another level of work (likebehind the curtains).
regards
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
Sigh... Don't get old, deloptes, its not all the fun its cracked up to be.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Gene Heskett wrote:
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
check here: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gene+Heskett&fing...
you can upload the revocation to revoke it.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
obviously not
Sigh... Don't get old, deloptes, its not all the fun its cracked up to be.
Looks like I don't have much of a choice :( but you are good example - an inspiration :).
regards
On Monday 30 April 2018 13:27:35 deloptes wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
check here: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gene+Heskett&fing... rint=on&op=index
you can upload the revocation to revoke it.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
obviously not
Sigh... Don't get old, deloptes, its not all the fun its cracked up to be.
Looks like I don't have much of a choice :( but you are good example - an inspiration :).
regards
I was promised that this was the time when I could just sit back and enjoy the rest of my life; go fishing, take long walks, sleep in whenever I want.... Well, okay, I do sleep in a lot, and take naps. Sleep is now sort of like what dessert used to be.
Bill
On Monday 30 April 2018 16:57:57 William Morder wrote:
On Monday 30 April 2018 13:27:35 deloptes wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
check here: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gene+Heskett& fingerp rint=on&op=index
you can upload the revocation to revoke it.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
obviously not
Sigh... Don't get old, deloptes, its not all the fun its cracked up to be.
Looks like I don't have much of a choice :( but you are good example
- an inspiration :).
regards
I was promised that this was the time when I could just sit back and enjoy the rest of my life; go fishing, take long walks, sleep in whenever I want.... Well, okay, I do sleep in a lot, and take naps. Sleep is now sort of like what dessert used to be.
Bill
I'll admit to snoozing in from time to time, but when I am ambulatory, I am usually up to something. That something ATM is making a new box for my trash trailer, out of 3/4" sheathing, loosely resembling what used to be called CDX. Poorly made stuff these days, but at $32.88 an 80 lb sheet, this time its getting sealed and painted so it will outlast me.
But its still too heavy for me to handle easily. The guy who could pick up 100 lbs in each hand and carry it all over town? He hasn't lived here in 30 years. I'm now paying the price in crushed disks in my back. And if going more than 40 feet, pushing a cane to baby a knee thats been dislocated way too many times.
I need to fire up the weed eater and bring the back yard down so I can see over it, but I dread having having it hanging on my neck for the 4 hours or so that would take. So it will likely wait till I've healed from the trailer overhaul. A week maybe?
Take care Bill.
On Monday 30 April 2018 16:27:35 deloptes wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
check here: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gene+Heskett&fi ngerprint=on&op=index
Well I'll be... From 15 years ago even.
you can upload the revocation to revoke it.
Using kgpg I assume, and the id strings that page displays.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
obviously not
:)
Sigh... Don't get old, deloptes, its not all the fun its cracked up to be.
Looks like I don't have much of a choice :( but you are good example - an inspiration :).
Thank you, I appreciate all the flowers I get. :-)
regards
To you too.
On Monday 30 April 2018 02:18:14 pm Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 30 April 2018 16:27:35 deloptes wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
The biggest problem is that I have a public key that was published back about pgp-262 or 262a time, 20 years back, so its out there "someplace", so I expect I should try to locate it and remove it from view/use before I try to setup another. Unforch ther drive in the amiga died, and took the keys with it to that great pasture that shitty drives goto when they fail.
check here: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=Gene+Heskett&fi ngerprint=on&op=index
Well I'll be... From 15 years ago even.
you can upload the revocation to revoke it.
Using kgpg I assume, and the id strings that page displays.
I don't recall if I set an expire on it or not. Or without the shorter ID string, how to convince the key-servers its mine, so its ok to nuke that puppy.
obviously not
Following along, Iam lucky, I had made a revoke.asc file on two of my id's. Mine is from 2001, never used it though..to much work.
I used the command line, gpg2, and directons from "Askubuntu", out of many dsearch results.
"pub 1024D/AF0A7290 2001-11-17 sig revok AF0A7290 2001-11-17 __________ __________ [selfsig]"
greg
On Saturday 28 April 2018 14:55:22 deloptes wrote:
William Morder wrote:
By the way, I got all these other packages installed with no issues. However, I cannot test the bridge package, as it only comes in amd64 (no 32-bit); and besides, using protonmail with kmail or other client is only available for paid accounts.
Which version of kmail? IF it is refereing to KDE >v4 it will not be compatible with TDEs kmail and hearing wayland, it looks like so.
I use kmail-trinity and associated trinity packages; although if I could use protonmail with an email client on my computer (kmail, claws, whatever) instead of webmail, I would be willing to change. Maybe it is possible to uninstall or disable kmail-trinity and just use the KDE4 version? (I tried that with Pidgin and Kopete, and they worked okay from KDE4 versions, but TDE versions work better for me.)
Also, I don't get what is the conflict with wayland packages; but hey, it's not my machine. In any case, there is no 32-bit bridge package, and protonmail will work with email clients only if it is a paid account - or so I read somewhere, I think it was on their site. (Privacy for sale!)
So until I can upgrade to 64-bit, or find a 32-bit bridge package, I can only wait, and hope that they make more options available in future. I will be reading what people say here, though, and watching for an opportunity to change to ProtonMail or something like it.
Bill
-
Curt Howland -
deloptes -
dep -
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Felix Miata -
Gene Heskett -
Greg Madden -
Jimmy Johnson -
Leslie Turriff -
phiebie＠tele2.at -
Stefan Krusche -
William Morder