cannewilson at googlemail.com
Mon Jul 27 14:25:35 UTC 2009
On Sunday 26 July 2009 22:49:57 g wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> > You're right that those things do need to be checked, but kmail does not
> > see the key at all. Kgpg sees it, and it has been marked with the
> > relevant trust level, so it should have been fine. I'll experiment more
> > in the morning. It's late now and I've been fighting this too long ;-)
> much luck to you.
> i do wish i cold be of more help, but i never got deep into kmail, other
> than a few weeks of using back when we first meet, [and that has been a
> while] so i do not recall much about it. plus, i did not use pgp then, so i
> am not aware of it's operation or tie-in of kmail and keyring.
> sometimes it is best to let things rest, especially the brain, when it has
> been under a long strain.
> pleasant dreams.
Having started from a new, empty keyring, to remove any possibility of
contamination, I now seem to have everything working. I *think* that the
problem is that the stakes have been raised for encrypting mail. I always
used to mark the necessary keys 'Fully Trusted', which was sufficient. That
seemed to me, together with local-signing, to be the right level for someone I
have 'known' for a long time, but have not actually confirmed the identity, as
I have those whose keys I have signed. It seems that now you have to mark a
key as 'Ultimately Trusted' before you can encrypt with it.
This feels totally wrong to me, but there's nothing I can do about it.
New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
Just found a cool new feature? Add it to UserBase
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/attachments/20090727/8951f056/attachment.bin
More information about the kde