On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 02:33:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > AFAIK this is not needed. The only compatibility options I have in my
> > ~/.gnupg/options file are:
>
> I was unable to make it work without the --rfc-1991 argument <shrug>
afaicr, you need --rfc-1991 to make encryption work, but not signatures.
> > >Note: You cannot pipe input to gpg and get a PGP 2.x compatible sig.
> > I do that for it.* CFVs and I'm quite sure the signatures can be
> > verified with PGP 2.x.
> > If anyone cares I can provide my generic GPG.pm module for signing and
> > verifying.
>
> Well, I tried many many times and went so far as to ask on the mailing
> list (was told it wouldn't work), never once was I able to make gpg create
> a signature that pgp 2.6 would accept using a pipe. You might want to
> double check that your sigs do work..
gpg --clearsign works, gpg --sign doesn't, seemingly. (ERROR: Nested
data has unexpected format. CTB=0xCB)
(I did "gpg --no-options --load-extension rsa --load-extension idea \
--clearsign -u 0x6494661D --secret-keyring ~/.pgp/secring.pgp \
< testfile > testfile.out")
SRH
--
Steve Haslam Debian GNU/Linux araqnid@debian.org
gnome-libs, gnome-core, gnome-control-center, gdm, p3nfs. what, me worry?
Attachment:
pgpdmDrJ8Dk1T.pgp
Description: PGP signature