From: guido@trentalancia.net (Guido Trentalancia) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 17:02:41 +0200 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] gpg: public key signature verification in evolution In-Reply-To: References: <1472737946.17989.0.camel@trentalancia.net> <7958812d-93fe-ded7-fb23-6d02c150bcb3@ieee.org> <1472815602.23008.8.camel@trentalancia.net> <09e0ed56-7f4d-71e8-d970-acecc18e2376@gmail.com> <1472827326.21408.7.camel@trentalancia.net> Message-ID: <1472828561.21408.12.camel@trentalancia.net> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com Hello Dominick. On Fri, 02/09/2016 at 16.46 +0200, Dominick Grift via refpolicy wrote: > On 09/02/2016 04:42 PM, Guido Trentalancia via refpolicy wrote: > > > > On Fri, 02/09/2016 at 15.48 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: [...] > > > > > however eventually it probably need rw instead of r, For > > > > > example > > > > > when > > > > > you sign emails. > > > > > > > > Let's try to sign this message and see if it also requires > > > > write > > > > permissions... > > > > It doesn't require write permissions, as it is evident in the new > > version of the patch. > > > > > > > > is that PGP/MIME or in-line signing? I dont use evolution so not > > > sure > > > if > > > it even support in-line signatures or PGP/MIME > > > > It's PGP signing. SMIME signing does not use gpg. > > > > I think there is a misunderstanding PGP/MIME will (AFAIK) attach the > signature in a separate file whereas in-line signing adds the > signature > to the actual message instead. Yes, it's openPGP/MIME. The same as in your messages. I have signed this message too, so that you can check. > Anyhow no big deal. Regards, Guido -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 213 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20160902/c17a6ae8/attachment.bin