My computer has 3 distributions installed: Slackware 15, Mageia 10
and openSUSE Tumbleweed. I use grub-customizer on Mageia 10 to
create the boot screen, but grub-customizer only detects Slackware 15
and Mageia 10 itself. Tumbleweed is always left out.
Maybe the 'weed is formatted btrfs.
Gilberto wrote:
My computer has 3 distributions installed: Slackware 15, Mageia
10 and openSUSE Tumbleweed. I use grub-customizer on Mageia 10
to create the boot screen, but grub-customizer only detects
Slackware 15 and Mageia 10 itself. Tumbleweed is always left
out.
Maybe the 'weed is formatted btrfs.
Then you would have to chainload it instead of 'straight'
Now I'll throw in my old anti-clearsign msg.
Clearsigning is only useful if 'we' your audience (and you
*should* intend your msg for your audience) have your public key.
But there is no easy way any of us can have your public key because
you have given us no 'direction' to it.
I can figure out the keyID 0x740BF09ABCB6F71A but it isn't on the
Ub or the MIT keyserver.
Gilberto wrote:
My computer has 3 distributions installed: Slackware 15, Mageia
10 and openSUSE Tumbleweed. I use grub-customizer on Mageia 10
to create the boot screen, but grub-customizer only detects
Slackware 15 and Mageia 10 itself. Tumbleweed is always left
out.
Maybe the 'weed is formatted btrfs.
Then you would have to chainload it instead of 'straight'
Now I'll throw in my old anti-clearsign msg.
Clearsigning is only useful if 'we' your audience (and you
*should* intend your msg for your audience) have your public key.
But there is no easy way any of us can have your public key because
you have given us no 'direction' to it.
I can figure out the keyID 0x740BF09ABCB6F71A but it isn't on the
Ub or the MIT keyserver.
Anyway, my point is that it seems like unnecessary junk in the
msg.
gpg: sending key BCB6F71A to hkp server pgp.mit.edu
Your public key's big problem is all of the OLD crap that is in there. TONS.
Mike Easter wrote:
Your public key's big problem is all of the OLD crap that is in
there. TONS.
I was checking to see if it were possible to edit the key's old
sigs, but I think it isn't. The advice was to revoke the old key
and make a new one.
I suppose one attitude might be, 'What difference does it make?'
But it REALLY is HUGE.
If someone wants to display it in their browser: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x740BF09ABCB6F71A
Gilberto wrote:
gpg: sending key BCB6F71A to hkp server pgp.mit.edu
That is the fattest key I have ever seen; 309479 bytes.
Anyway, I imported it into Tb's openpgp and the verification
worked properly.
My original plan was to install SeaMonkey on a live LM and use
Enigmail, but it was quicker to just use Tb's openpgp. That Tb
feature is a poor replacement for Enigmail.
I don't see how your privacy attitudes about your email apply to
your opinion about clearsigning msg/s in a usenet group full of
people who don't have your public key.
Gilberto wrote:
gpg: sending key BCB6F71A to hkp server pgp.mit.edu
That is the fattest key I have ever seen; 309479 bytes.
This is not pretty or ugly, it is just big.
Encrypting email is one thing; clearsigning news msg/s is another.
The reason for clearsigning is so that a reader knows that the msg
was indeed sent by a specific person, and that actually only really
works properly if the proper Web of Trust process is established,
which it is typically not. Usenet is also sometimes a sporgery
haven, but there are better remedies for that than clearsigning.
I created the new keys in 2024
Gilberto wrote:
This is not pretty or ugly, it is just big.
You are right, I shouldn't call something ugly just because it is
big (fat).
But it is SOOOO big :-/
Yes; I can see that, Wed May 22 4:20p PDT (it says; I see that PDT
doesn't match your posting tz stamp).
I tho't I could get rid of some old stuff w/ minimize or clean, but
it didn't work.
Mike Easter wrote:
Encrypting email is one thing; clearsigning news msg/s is another.
The reason for clearsigning is so that a reader knows that the msg
was indeed sent by a specific person, and that actually only really
works properly if the proper Web of Trust process is established,
which it is typically not. Usenet is also sometimes a sporgery
haven, but there are better remedies for that than clearsigning.
I read this paragraph, reread it and had it translated by two
artificial intelligences, but to me, the meaning is still unclear.
There is a discussion list for GnuPG:gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Mike Easter wrote:
Encrypting email is one thing; clearsigning news msg/s is another.
The reason for clearsigning is so that a reader knows that the msg
was indeed sent by a specific person, and that actually only really
works properly if the proper Web of Trust process is established,
which it is typically not. Usenet is also sometimes a sporgery
haven, but there are better remedies for that than clearsigning.
I read this paragraph, reread it and had it translated by two
artificial intelligences, but to me, the meaning is still unclear.
- ----- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Stela dato:2.461.242,400 Loka tempo:2026-07-20 18:35:45 Lundo
Slackware 15.0 x86_64
- -==-
O c|-u se ganha com favores. Se fosse com merecimentos, voc|- ficaria
de fora e seu cachorro estaria l|i dentro.
-- Mark Twain
The meaning is "clearsigning serves no purpose on Usenet."
William Unruh wrote:
The meaning is "clearsigning serves no purpose on Usenet."
My opinion is that there are pgp-related usenet groups which can be
used to help someone w/ their mail/news agent's functions to
encrypt and sign messages to help them configure for such as
emailing securely, or even posting to an encrypted newsgroup and
reading there.
That is a reasonable type usenet place to be encrypting and
clearsigning, but a conventional group isn't. The business of how
to mitigate and deal with sporgery/forgery in a conventional group
is another topic and separate from clearsigning.
And I think the best way to publicize one's support for the value
of public/private keys is to include such as one's fingerprint in
the sig.
It's like worrying about fleas on a dog before weighing it.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 45:27:31 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,372 |