From monfero at gmail.com  Sun Nov  1 12:18:38 2009
From: monfero at gmail.com (Dani)
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:18:38 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation
Message-ID: <1257106718.29235.37.camel@thungi>

hi all,

i've been working this weekend on galician translation for enigmail.

i've made the .xpi for 0.95.7 and works perfectly but it doesn't work
for the current release 0.96.0. 

i've found a thread talking about this issue but i can't make galician
translation works on my 0.96.0 enigmail.
when i start thunderbird (icedove 2.0.0.22), after installing enigmail
0.96 and galician translation 0.96 this message appears:

********<menuitem id="enigmail_wizard"
--------^

i've uninstalled icedove completely (dpkg -P icedove && rm
-r .mozilla-thunderbird) but error remains the same.

some suggestion?

i'd like to upload galician translation to the enigmail site to everbody
can download it.

thanks

dani



From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov  2 00:04:31 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:04:31 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation
In-Reply-To: <1257106718.29235.37.camel@thungi>
References: <1257106718.29235.37.camel@thungi>
Message-ID: <4AEE928F.1060105@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Dani wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> i've been working this weekend on galician translation for enigmail.
> 
> i've made the .xpi for 0.95.7 and works perfectly but it doesn't work
> for the current release 0.96.0. 
> 
> i've found a thread talking about this issue but i can't make galician
> translation works on my 0.96.0 enigmail.
> when i start thunderbird (icedove 2.0.0.22), after installing enigmail
> 0.96 and galician translation 0.96 this message appears:
> 
> ********<menuitem id="enigmail_wizard"
> --------^

The menu item enigmail_wizard was adden in v0.96.0.

Do you still have Enigmail v0.95.7 installed (either globally or in your
profile)? I believe your problem is that Thunderbird somehow references
the old version of Enigmail.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSu6SjXcOpHodsOiwAQhlWwf+I+4YYVOyhJ3gwBAfjK1U/XfJPnIoAWhb
G7kYGgKLsEq4Vdc/VJ9ddCPuNzR1IW1i+60FLdFWbGzyIe8uObWK5RzCT3v4bOOK
JzpGl4LivdgM6QzUOP1dZSa8BSYqB8jtSlNETleDg7jcINyR1KcQDdpFOmAyP6T9
va290LWdb70DpDoBuqS/PNx+g2bJKfzzxfS6WXsJ2fn/RagsNGUkKqxYsR6huJAF
jFkwcJTzHS9maVoZrcHPb42THrMeoQbCDmpN3DW5Rz4W3HSghlztCYGIQG7ABrk4
pEaDOWaNm616ECVGvuHGkLj04FHCECPlkDuPqRoU5qpvcTtIwE1r6g==
=6zZQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From monfero at gmail.com  Mon Nov  2 00:12:57 2009
From: monfero at gmail.com (Dani)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:12:57 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation
In-Reply-To: <4AEE928F.1060105@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <1257106718.29235.37.camel@thungi>
	<4AEE928F.1060105@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <90661c390911020012v4a6fd07bn7845ba005de0effc@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/2 Patrick Brunschwig <patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org>

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> > i've made the .xpi for 0.95.7 and works perfectly but it doesn't work
> > for the current release 0.96.0.
> >
> > i've found a thread talking about this issue but i can't make galician
> > translation works on my 0.96.0 enigmail.
> > when i start thunderbird (icedove 2.0.0.22), after installing enigmail
> > 0.96 and galician translation 0.96 this message appears:
> >
> > ********<menuitem id="enigmail_wizard"
> > --------^
>
> The menu item enigmail_wizard was adden in v0.96.0.
>
> Do you still have Enigmail v0.95.7 installed (either globally or in your
> profile)? I believe your problem is that Thunderbird somehow references
> the old version of Enigmail.
>
> - -Patrick
>
> i'll try later but, as i said before, i remove enigmail and thunderbir
completely using "dpkg -P" (purge) an "rm -r .mozilla-thunderbird" to delete
all my thunderbird profile.
Then I've installed thunderbrid , enigmail, and galician translation, in
this order, from zero, and error persists.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091102/2a91f71b/attachment.html>

From l.dobrev at gmail.com  Mon Nov  2 01:50:36 2009
From: l.dobrev at gmail.com (Lachezar Dobrev)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:50:36 +0200
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation
In-Reply-To: <90661c390911020012v4a6fd07bn7845ba005de0effc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1257106718.29235.37.camel@thungi>
	<4AEE928F.1060105@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<90661c390911020012v4a6fd07bn7845ba005de0effc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <90266c3f0911020150u53c4ff0al76bed3d26aef717d@mail.gmail.com>

  This is a known problem with the translations of Mozilla products in general.
  The translation mechanism uses XML entities. However when using
newer product with an older translation 9or the other way around for
that matter) these XML entities are commonly not present in the
translation, that leads to XML parsing issues, since entities are
resolved immediately.

  I am not sure how Enigmail manages translations.

  Mr. Brunschwig...

  Might I suggest using http://babelzilla.org/ for Enigmail translations.
  The site is quite handy for translations. It has a decent, though
not perfect, infrastructure to cope with incomplete/partial
translations.

  I am currently using Enigmail in English, rather than my native language.

2009/11/2 Dani <monfero at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2009/11/2 Patrick Brunschwig <patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org>
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> > i've made the .xpi for 0.95.7 and works perfectly but it doesn't work
>> > for the current release 0.96.0.
>> >
>> > i've found a thread talking about this issue but i can't make galician
>> > translation works on my 0.96.0 enigmail.
>> > when i start thunderbird (icedove 2.0.0.22), after installing enigmail
>> > 0.96 and galician translation 0.96 this message appears:
>> >
>> > ********<menuitem id="enigmail_wizard"
>> > --------^
>>
>> The menu item enigmail_wizard was adden in v0.96.0.
>>
>> Do you still have Enigmail v0.95.7 installed (either globally or in your
>> profile)? I believe your problem is that Thunderbird somehow references
>> the old version of Enigmail.
>>
>> - -Patrick
>>
> i'll try later but, as i said before, i remove enigmail and thunderbir
> completely using "dpkg -P" (purge) an "rm -r .mozilla-thunderbird" to delete
> all my thunderbird profile.
> Then I've installed thunderbrid , enigmail, and galician translation, in
> this order, from zero, and error persists.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Enigmail mailing list
> Enigmail at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail
>
>

From Nomis101 at web.de  Mon Nov  2 12:22:20 2009
From: Nomis101 at web.de (Nomis101 at web.de)
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:22:20 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] How to build enigmail (0.97a) on Mac OS X?
Message-ID: <1039600612@web.de>

In short I try to tell you what is not working for my if I try to build Enigmail on Mac OS X 10.6 (downloaded Thunderbird code via Mercurial).

The first thing is, the make script is searching for some files in the wrong directory. After "make" I get:

Makefile:46: /temp/src/mailnews/config/config.mk: Not a directory
Makefile:48: /temp/src/mailnews/config/rules.mk: Not a directory
make: *** No rule to make target `/temp/src/mailnews/config/rules.mk'.  Stop.

Thats now wonder, because my config folder is in  /temp/src/config. So I've copied the config folder into the mailnews folder. After that "make" gives me:

/Developer/usr/bin/make export
/opt/local/bin/perl5 /temp/src/mailnews/mozilla/build/autoconf/make-makefile -t /temp/src/mailnews -d ../../..  ipc/Makefile
Can't open perl script "/temp/src/mailnews/mozilla/build/autoconf/make-makefile": No such file or directory
make[1]: *** [ipc/Makefile] Error 2
make: *** [default] Error 2

That is also no wonder, because there isn't a folder "mozilla" in my mailnews folder (and if you follow the standard procedure for getting the code from mozilla via mercurial this is normal). So I've created a folder "mozilla" in my mailnews folder and copied the folder mozilla/build into it. After that "make" gives me:

Can't open perl script "/temp/src/mailnews/mozilla/config/build-list.pl": No such file or directory
make[3]: *** [export] Error 2
make[2]: *** [export] Error 2
make[1]: *** [export] Error 2
make: *** [default] Error 2

So I've also copied the folder mozilla/config into my new folder mailnews/mozilla. After that no folder/directory is missing anymore. But now I get the error:

In file included from /temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimeenig.h:4,
                 from /temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/nsEnigMimeService.cpp:43:
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimedummy.h:6:22: error: mimecryp.h: No such file or directory
In file included from /temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimeenig.h:4,
                 from /temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/nsEnigMimeService.cpp:43:
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimedummy.h:20: error: expected initializer before ?*? token
In file included from /temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/nsEnigMimeService.cpp:43:
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimeenig.h:10: error: ?MimeEncryptedClass? does not name a type
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/mimeenig.h:16: error: ?MimeEncrypted? does not name a type
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/nsEnigMimeService.cpp: In member function ?virtual nsresult nsEnigMimeService::Init()?:
/temp/src/mailnews/extensions/enigmail/src/src/nsEnigMimeService.cpp:149: error: ?mimeEncryptedClassP? was not declared in this scope
make[2]: *** [nsEnigMimeService.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [libs] Error 2
make: *** [default] Error 2


And I can't fix this. :(
________________________________________________________________
DSL-Preisknaller: DSL-Komplettpakete schon f?r 16,99 Euro/mtl.!*
http://produkte.web.de/go/02/


From monfero at gmail.com  Thu Nov  5 13:57:04 2009
From: monfero at gmail.com (Dani)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:57:04 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation enigmail 0.9.6
Message-ID: <1257458224.5345.12.camel@thungi>

hi all,

i've finished galician translation for enigmail. it works on last
release, enigmail 0.9.6.

some colleagues are verifying my translation but i think it is quite
well.

who can add this translation to the webpage?

thanks

dani



From olav at mozilla-enigmail.org  Thu Nov  5 14:34:01 2009
From: olav at mozilla-enigmail.org (Olav Seyfarth)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:34:01 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] galician translation enigmail 0.9.6
In-Reply-To: <1257458224.5345.12.camel@thungi>
References: <1257458224.5345.12.camel@thungi>
Message-ID: <4AF352D9.90609@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi Dani,

> i've finished galician translation for enigmail, it works on enigmail 0.9.6

Thank you very much for your work!

> some colleagues are verifying my translation but i think it is quite well.
> who can add this translation to the webpage?

I will once you finished QA. Please send the XPI to me along with an email
address and name to use on http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/langpack.php

Olav
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Diese Email ist digital signiert und/oder verschl?sselt
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkrzUtcACgkQL/NBt8fdKe3BtQCeOPVjPqCfqgLa+p87hHYLjsZo
IZMAn3QFW1Ju/4hRbvWts/NW3VdmLKfW
=bKx6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Sun Nov  8 01:52:50 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:52:50 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with lastest nightly
Message-ID: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>

Hi all,

lastest version of enigmail + latest version fo shredder are not 
compatible. When you try to send , shredder get's confused about email 
accounts being new accounts. and sending doesn't occur.

Regression is from commit from the last two days - something makes 
enigmail unhappy - as disabling it makes sending email functionnal again.

Patrick do you want a bug in bugzilla for that ?

Ludo

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2


From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov  8 04:17:14 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:17:14 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with lastest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
Message-ID: <4AF6B6CA.6050102@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08.11.2009 10:52, Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> lastest version of enigmail + latest version fo shredder are not
> compatible. When you try to send , shredder get's confused about email
> accounts being new accounts. and sending doesn't occur.
> 
> Regression is from commit from the last two days - something makes
> enigmail unhappy - as disabling it makes sending email functionnal again.
> 
> Patrick do you want a bug in bugzilla for that ?

I'm not overly surprised to hear this. I assume this is bug 248681,
which I already suspected in advance would break Enigmail.

And no, I won't need a bugzilla bug for it :-)

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSva2yXcOpHodsOiwAQh+xggAiyWiYuAqENyv0w3sCMJTnBKz7vtDPR5u
J5kkXCC39ykihaIXHssrYdz+sF1Wt8P1x8inXhREzKLPb51Qpon3zFGteM05X/GU
+HS2jxqGCnaN9yHDCohrOhioSPCNLQE59G9bnPgmuSccvbDKMibJNTcHNATdq1ZO
uAjO8X0Ct3vCsDog0y6kM0Y5oW6N7b0QNM4bhBEP9i90z9j+rlRiSLu3kIBnLYvG
PwdK6n5x34kcnNHS1XnEFdz9trguiLcWadYtikL/n7lk6sr449hygvdlDkOozaUi
GGSUslfXSVQkYMRPmAEvhxGg225Ye1t25HVUsrBYiTw8UUjzAvMD3A==
=O20x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Sun Nov  8 04:29:15 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:29:15 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
Message-ID: <4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:

> lastest version of enigmail + latest version fo shredder are not
> compatible. When you try to send , shredder get's confused about email
> accounts being new accounts. and sending doesn't occur.
> 
> Regression is from commit from the last two days - something makes
> enigmail unhappy - as disabling it makes sending email functionnal again.

I also experienced 'issues' yesterday after installing the Enigmail
Nightly 20091107 into Shredder 20091106.  This combination caused
Tb3.0pre to crash whenever Sign/Encrypt was invoked.  Once I downloaded
the Shredder Nightly 20091107 the problem was resolved.  :)

I am sending this message with Shredder 20091107 & Enigmail Nightly
20091108.

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Sunday 08 Nov 2009, 07:28  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJK9rmZAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPLWkH/iExzh6U++EaT5YqeMOUhDjx
AKqVNZqRxjd1OPBC0626luJd5S+OyuTj2rYOXxMqvfaWr43p1CWVwzJNuvQylGfY
P8PhjJiRUMnUE11KVv0OEDPGv5Oqs5OJICEcDHCiMScjZNh1FlrkSLIEG1IM+FwT
0A2mKBLo2GcyiMVa71kZazf4nk3XxGPnb8d06bzj2AUWA9vZtN83jVoGcjBIDEbQ
2+GYudyU+C8hg/7zezqYParCx0L4S9QOaavJ3kDRhGAXK8R6WZa9sR0v3423ok/p
oE5AtwcGPP4adUoZ3vuf4QhtDpIBk3pI7ZlXbOxrJZayyxL1nGSGL5OklAJrcMA=
=3854
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov  8 06:14:35 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:14:35 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08.11.2009 13:29, John W. Moore III wrote:
> Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
> 
>> lastest version of enigmail + latest version fo shredder are not
>> compatible. When you try to send , shredder get's confused about email
>> accounts being new accounts. and sending doesn't occur.
> 
>> Regression is from commit from the last two days - something makes
>> enigmail unhappy - as disabling it makes sending email functionnal again.
> 
> I also experienced 'issues' yesterday after installing the Enigmail
> Nightly 20091107 into Shredder 20091106.  This combination caused
> Tb3.0pre to crash whenever Sign/Encrypt was invoked.  Once I downloaded
> the Shredder Nightly 20091107 the problem was resolved.  :)
> 
> I am sending this message with Shredder 20091107 & Enigmail Nightly
> 20091108.

John is right, the today's Enigmail builds work fine with latest
Shredder builds. The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSvbSSXcOpHodsOiwAQg7FAf+KGL4a/3IPbm7Hv7AG2pComdTUaeqhbiP
ygZr5zRKwJ8ZO7YKe5XPR+XF9V5VVZh89exiFyTbeMXGQ7yGFj/VwE/pm2OkSi0/
vlr9vFlKMPqlZQ7owqjVxD6tIIQryWLvkFJnjOdy99EXhVs7rottKQFRgOwvXqIJ
ePZCxXr7+XZWQ0sPJkJBZ4MB4YIJjcQTfQ503XPp2sewF9fJmSe8+WYrny1yXUPk
+o6sFCthpzvaMPB8QslbJlC5mwvuRb4/eBjkbD3+HAdC2DpOohfhOBvtCCF7ReQt
n4E9Cu5YCnZXI7LgmcKkbTyTLVxqV3ETuRwY88jGWcWliO8EbQ9dug==
=MCSw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From shavital at mac.com  Sun Nov  8 06:55:57 2009
From: shavital at mac.com (Charly Avital)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4AF6DBFD.7060600@mac.com>

Patrick Brunschwig wrote the following on 11/8/09 9:14 AM:
[...]

> The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
> from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.
> 
> -Patrick

That's what I am running, and it keeps on working fine.

Charly
MacOSX 10.6.1 32bits MacBook5,1 - 0xA57A8EFA Gnupg 1.4.10 - MacGPG2
2.0.13 -  Running Enigmail version 0.97b (20091103-1701)  with
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre)
Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4




From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov  8 07:07:20 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:07:20 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6DBFD.7060600@mac.com>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4AF6DBFD.7060600@mac.com>
Message-ID: <4AF6DEA8.7020504@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08.11.2009 15:55, Charly Avital wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig wrote the following on 11/8/09 9:14 AM:
> [...]
> 
>> The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
>> from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.
>>
>> -Patrick
> 
> That's what I am running, and it keeps on working fine.
> 
> Charly
> MacOSX 10.6.1 32bits MacBook5,1 - 0xA57A8EFA Gnupg 1.4.10 - MacGPG2
> 2.0.13 -  Running Enigmail version 0.97b (20091103-1701)  with
> Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre)
> Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4

Right, but "Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4" is not latest nightly
build of Thunderbird (which is what Ludovic was reporting about).

My nightly build reports "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091108 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre"

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSvbeo3cOpHodsOiwAQjQhggAirErOsD9dl+p3y/CTYhdLwS8Gne+P5jp
kBK9BiwyZSBo/Jep2IaH8odeN8I1HuFpEneTwWo/rPGQqBfgDD8f2rI6GaXQRwM3
xY2h+mZPtOKdqZpeIMb1ZfYqub905B8CWNGVIAXPrhR1asCs6PMkSznG+IXT8Lw1
1L3hjEvzUU+tuFdQKCj4OL5RhCNbxNSCmJEPWEgN3E1gB/kkllecPoXBStg7ceEg
QFKS6uH89YrnHBfj9C5wJFKWtJRAuWq/OAdc0jdAcJeN4aE7lUTRWBGUIFFEiIuI
AdF8yJp8grN1KBwxZmpAMtJG/WikyiW0KpmVn55cOYNMwdR4Z/gcKA==
=c3Hs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From shavital at mac.com  Sun Nov  8 08:14:39 2009
From: shavital at mac.com (Charly Avital)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:14:39 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6DEA8.7020504@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org> <4AF6DBFD.7060600@mac.com>
	<4AF6DEA8.7020504@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4AF6EE6F.1080500@mac.com>

Patrick Brunschwig wrote the following on 11/8/09 10:07 AM:
> Right, but "Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4" is not latest nightly
> build of Thunderbird (which is what Ludovic was reporting about).

I have downloaded the latest "Shredder" for MacOSX. Cannot send.

> My nightly build reports "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
> rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091108 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre"

I am not running Linux here.
Charly


From dave.schaefer at gmail.com  Sun Nov  8 20:29:06 2009
From: dave.schaefer at gmail.com (Dave Schaefer)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:29:06 +0000
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
Message-ID: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>

Hey list!

My name is Dave, this is my first post to the Enigmail list. Firstly,
thank you very much to the dev team for creating Enigmail! It is really
great :) Secondly thanks for maintaining this email list.

I recently set up ThunderBird, GnuPG, and Enigmail on my machine and I'm
pleased to report it was easy to do. Thanks for writing the Quick Start
Guide and having great documentation. I was able to easily import my
pre-existing secret key and public keys from my old computer that had died.

I have some questions about Enigmail documentation.

1. The Quick Start Guide discusses creating a new public/private key
pair when you start out using Enigmail (
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/documentation/quickstart-ch2.php ). However,
what about users that have an existing key? The 'Key Management' page
discusses importing existing keys from a file -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/documentation/keyman.php . Do you think it
would be good to add a link in the Quick Start Guide for 'advanced'
users mentioning that it is possible to import existing keys instead of
generating a new one? Or to perhaps write a brief blurb on doing this? I
would volunteer to try writing something if people think it is a good idea.

2. I see there is some discussion on the list about keeping your .gpg
files in a Truecrypt volue - e.g.
http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/2008-March/009003.html and
http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/2008-March/009000.html . The
latter link mentions that secret rings are themselves encrypted. Does
this mean that it's okay to leave your secring.gpg file lying around or
even give it to an adversary, because it's still encrypted with your
passphrase? Is it worth having a discussion in the documentation on the
pros and cons of containerizing your .gpg files, or is such a setup
redundant?


Anyway thanks for your time. I did my best to look through the mailing
list archives but sorry if this has been discussed before.

Cheers!
Dave

From dan at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov  9 04:08:24 2009
From: dan at mozilla-enigmail.org (Daniele Raffo)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:08:24 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <mailman.399.1257740957.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.399.1257740957.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hd90nq$u0t$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Schaefer wrote:

> 1. The Quick Start Guide discusses creating a new public/private key
> pair when you start out using Enigmail (
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/documentation/quickstart-ch2.php ). However,
> what about users that have an existing key? The 'Key Management' page
> discusses importing existing keys from a file -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/documentation/keyman.php . Do you think it
> would be good to add a link in the Quick Start Guide for 'advanced'
> users mentioning that it is possible to import existing keys instead of
> generating a new one? Or to perhaps write a brief blurb on doing this? I
> would volunteer to try writing something if people think it is a good idea.


Hi Dave,

The Quick Start Guide is aimed to people that use Enigmail for the first
time, and therefore have to generate a key pair.  Importing an existing
key pair is also fundamental, obviously.
As people on the Enigmail-Devel mailing list already know, I am
currently writing a complete guide for Enigmail which will try to
include everything that's important to know about the plugin.  This
point will be covered and explained on the guide.  Thanks for your offer
to help; I'll contact you in private about that.

> 2. I see there is some discussion on the list about keeping your .gpg
> files in a Truecrypt volue - e.g.
> http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/2008-March/009003.html and
> http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/2008-March/009000.html . The
> latter link mentions that secret rings are themselves encrypted. Does
> this mean that it's okay to leave your secring.gpg file lying around or
> even give it to an adversary, because it's still encrypted with your
> passphrase? 

No.  The passphrase is intended as an additional protection.  You are
supposed to keep your secret key, well, secret.

> Is it worth having a discussion in the documentation on the
> pros and cons of containerizing your .gpg files, or is such a setup
> redundant?

While I believe that keeping your secret keys in an encrypted container
is a good idea, I'm not sure whether instructions for doing this should
be included in the documentation.  Enigmail is a plugin for GnuPG, and
many questions that are purely GnuPG-related should be referred to the
GnuPG documentation, to avoid redundancy and inconsistency.  It might be
worth mentioning it in the Enigmail guide, though.


- --
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkr4BjcACgkQW9ZLGa9iatQ6hgCffRtDX+cMFIy2Q9A8yVBfBYi3
W+gAni7ScaaqXGU/N885Mejy4BzlXiL5
=SnqH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From junk4 at klunky.co.uk  Mon Nov  9 04:27:54 2009
From: junk4 at klunky.co.uk (J4)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:27:54 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Key server access from behind a firewall
Message-ID: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>

Dear all,

	I am behind a corporate firewall but would like to use the keyservers
from within Enigmail to verify keys.

I have two options:-

i)	Use an SSH tunnel from my PC to our server that is allowed to connect
to the outside world and port forward from there.

ii)	Use dante socks proxy on the same server.

However, to do either of these I have to specify the port number, but
cannot see how to do this in Enigmail. One can enter a keyserver but not
a port.  I tried using this syntax:  127.0.0.1:10999  (for SSH
portforwarding) but this failed, and  ourexitsever:1090 (for socks), but
this also did not work.  The Enigmail UI does not accept this.

Is there a configuration file where I can enter this information, or is
there another way.


How about forwarding 127.0.0.1:11371 to pgp.mit.edu:11371  ?  Would this
work?

Regards, j.

From junk4 at klunky.co.uk  Mon Nov  9 04:34:38 2009
From: junk4 at klunky.co.uk (J4)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:34:38 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Key server access from behind a firewall
In-Reply-To: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>
References: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4AF80C5E.1060300@klunky.co.uk>

I found a solution:

1) Install autossh (easy to manage monitor and resurrect dead tunnels)
from a repository , or http://www.harding.motd.ca/autossh/ , or call SSH
directly.

2) autossh -f -L 11371:pgp.mit.edu:11371 yourExitServer -N &

3) Set your keyserver in Enigmal to 127.0.01

Regards, j.

J4 wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> 	I am behind a corporate firewall but would like to use the keyservers
> from within Enigmail to verify keys.
> 
> I have two options:-
> 
> i)	Use an SSH tunnel from my PC to our server that is allowed to connect
> to the outside world and port forward from there.
> 
> ii)	Use dante socks proxy on the same server.
> 
> However, to do either of these I have to specify the port number, but
> cannot see how to do this in Enigmail. One can enter a keyserver but not
> a port.  I tried using this syntax:  127.0.0.1:10999  (for SSH
> portforwarding) but this failed, and  ourexitsever:1090 (for socks), but
> this also did not work.  The Enigmail UI does not accept this.
> 
> Is there a configuration file where I can enter this information, or is
> there another way.
> 
> 
> How about forwarding 127.0.0.1:11371 to pgp.mit.edu:11371  ?  Would this
> work?
> 
> Regards, j.
> _______________________________________________
> Enigmail mailing list
> Enigmail at mozdev.org
> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail

From ayush.cena at gmail.com  Mon Nov  9 05:24:16 2009
From: ayush.cena at gmail.com (ayush sharma)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:24:16 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ba2ebc620911090524vb7cec55qe3e402aa703a4649@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dave,

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Dave Schaefer <dave.schaefer at gmail.com>wrote:
<snip>

>  The
> latter link mentions that secret rings are themselves encrypted. Does
> this mean that it's okay to leave your secring.gpg file lying around or
> even give it to an adversary, because it's still encrypted with your
> passphrase?
>
> Well, I would try and skip the exact Math details, but this makes it
extremely easy for the adversary to use your key-pair maliciously, if your
passwords/passphrase are your only line of defence. If I have just your
public key from some source, and provided I can only carry out a key-only
attack (my only advantage is that I have your public key, and I somehow want
to extract your private key from it), the mathematical operations required
to do such a thing are enormous (can't be done in polynomial time, or in
simple terms, just not doable).

If on the other hand, I have your key pair, but it is encrypted by a
password, it further increases my chances exponentially of 'decrypting it'
for my malicious use. Most of the users either use dictionary words, or some
clever variants of the same for passwords (and of course friend's names,
dog's names etc). You could also refer to many of Schneier's articles on how
users try and use 'cleverly' restructured dictionary words as passwords.
This is such a bad habit to rely only on your password, as the attackers can
use password crackers, use a bit of common sense coupled with brute force,
and crack the password. I know you may reason that many users use randomly
generated passwords, and either store them somewhere, remember it, or use
some password manager to handle it. But, how many users actually do that?
Not a lot

The main reason for them reasoning that you keep your secret key secure, is
coz it is meant to be /secure/. You don't want the adversary having an upper
hand while he wants to obtain your key-pair for his malicious use. It's just
their way of improving your odds against your adversary. :)

Thank you, and Best Regards,
-Ayush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091109/da0f8b2c/attachment.html>

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Mon Nov  9 06:51:05 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:51:05 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <ba2ebc620911090524vb7cec55qe3e402aa703a4649@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
	<ba2ebc620911090524vb7cec55qe3e402aa703a4649@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AF82C59.3050501@sixdemonbag.org>

ayush sharma wrote:
> Well, I would try and skip the exact Math details, but this makes it 
> extremely easy for the adversary to use your key-pair maliciously, if
> your passwords/passphrase are your only line of defence.

This is not true.  Put a strong passphrase on your private key and you
could safely publish it in the _New York Times_.  It is a wild
exaggeration to say it makes it "extremely easy."

> If I have just your public key from some source, and provided I can 
> only carry out a key-only attack (my only advantage is that I have 
> your public key, and I somehow want to extract your private key from
>  it), the mathematical operations required to do such a thing are 
> enormous (can't be done in polynomial time, or in simple terms, just
>  not doable).
> 
> If on the other hand, I have your key pair, but it is encrypted by a 
> password, it further increases my chances exponentially of 
> 'decrypting it' for my malicious use.

With a strong passphrase, cracking the private key is exactly as hard --
probably even harder, if you're using 1kbit RSA or DSA -- as cracking
the ciphertext.

> Most of the users either use dictionary words, or some clever 
> variants of the same for passwords (and of course friend's names, 
> dog's names etc).

Many do.  This is not to say that most do, or that it is recommended
practice.  Putting a weak passphrase on your private key is kind of like
leaving your keys in your car.  You'd better not park it in any bad
neighborhoods or else someone's going to vanish it for you.

> This is such a bad habit to rely only on your password, as the 
> attackers can use password crackers, use a bit of common sense 
> coupled with brute force, and crack the password.

This is why OpenPGP's S2K algorithms are so slow and difficult to speed
up.  Brute forcing an OpenPGP passphrase is going to be orders of
magnitude slower than trying to brute force a simpler system.  The
OpenPGP authors were very much aware of the risks of dictionary attacks
and put specific countermeasures in the specification to fight them.

> But, how many users actually do that? Not a lot

This is an argument in favor of teaching people correct OpenPGP usage,
not teaching people that just possessing the secret key is an automatic
disaster.

> The main reason for them reasoning that you keep your secret key 
> secure, is coz it is meant to be /secure/. You don't want the 
> adversary having an upper hand while he wants to obtain your key-pair
>  for his malicious use. It's just their way of improving your odds 
> against your adversary. :)

Getting access to your machine is a lot easier than you think, Ayush.
Depending on who you talk to, between 15% and 60% of all desktop
machines are already pwn3d.  Most of these machines are running
antivirus and have owners who say that of course their machines are
secure since they're running antivirus software and a firewall.

Speaking for myself, I don't know if my machine is pwn3d.  I don't think
it is.  I can give some reasons to back that up.  But I don't know --
all I do know is I don't want to blindly assume I'm not part of the
15-to-60-percent.




... In 1992-1993, in there, when Phil Z. first came out with PGP 2.6,
"don't let anyone have your secret keys" was a realistic policy and
passphrases only had to be strong enough to foil casual attacks.  We no
longer live in 1993.

Today, thanks to the explosion of the internet, we need to assume "it is
easy for an attacker to get your secret keys, if you store them on a
device which is ever connected to the internet", and passphrases need to
be strong enough to stand up to major, concerted attack.


IMO, at least.  YMMV.

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Mon Nov  9 07:01:15 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:01:15 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>

Dave Schaefer wrote:
> Hey list!

Hey, Dave.  :)  Welcome!

> I recently set up ThunderBird, GnuPG, and Enigmail on my machine and
> I'm pleased to report it was easy to do. Thanks for writing the Quick
> Start Guide and having great documentation. I was able to easily
> import my pre-existing secret key and public keys from my old
> computer that had died.

Thanks for the feedback regarding the QSG.  I'm the guy who wrote
probably 90% of it (and I've been threatening to rewrite it for a couple
of months now).

> 1. The Quick Start Guide discusses creating a new public/private key 
> pair when you start out using Enigmail ... However, what about users
> that have an existing key?

IIRC, we discussed this some years ago when I was first writing the QSG.
 We finally decided the QSG should be as short as possible.  The more
pages we add to the QSG, the more users we're going to scare off.  "Ack,
their Quick Start Guide is 44 pages!  I can't deal with this!"

That's not an exaggeration, by the way.  The first draft of the QSG
covered how to download and install Thunderbird, how to download and
install GnuPG, how to download and install Enigmail, etc., for each of
Linux, OS X, Windows and FreeBSD.  That by itself took up something like
20 pages.  We decided it would scare newcomers less if we removed those
instructions and just said, "if you need help installing these packages,
check...".

> Do you think it would be good to add a link in the Quick Start Guide
> for 'advanced' users mentioning that it is possible to import
> existing keys instead of generating a new one? Or to perhaps write a
> brief blurb on doing this?

Not in the QSG, no.  We were at one point going to write a much longer
Enigmail handbook, but so far it remains unwritten.  (Which is mostly my
fault.)

> The latter link mentions that secret rings are themselves encrypted.
> Does this mean that it's okay to leave your secring.gpg file lying
> around or even give it to an adversary, because it's still encrypted
> with your passphrase?

So long as you are using a very strong passphrase which no one but you
knows, you could mail your private keyring to the NSA and still feel
confident in the privacy of your emails.

No, I am not exaggerating.

> Is it worth having a discussion in the documentation on the pros and
> cons of containerizing your .gpg files, or is such a setup redundant?
> 
I would be in favor of mentioning this in the Enigmail handbook, but not
the QSG.  I don't think the QSG is the right place to have that discussion.



... Once again, welcome to the list!


From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Mon Nov  9 07:08:35 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:08:35 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Key server access from behind a firewall
In-Reply-To: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>
References: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4AF83073.9070509@fifthhorseman.net>

On 11/09/2009 07:27 AM, J4 wrote:
> 	I am behind a corporate firewall but would like to use the keyservers
> from within Enigmail to verify keys.
 [...]
> How about forwarding 127.0.0.1:11371 to pgp.mit.edu:11371  ?  Would this
> work?

Does your firewall block *all* outbound access, including access to the
web?  many keyservers are available over port 80 as well as the standard
hkp port.

If the cleartext HKP traffic is what is causing trouble (or if you need
to use a proxy or something, perhaps using a keyserver over hkps
(hkp-over-tls) would work?  HKPS is available as of the latest versions
of GnuPG (1.4.10 and 2.0.13).

zimmermann.mayfirst.org is the only hkps keyserver that i know about
(i'm one of the maintainers of it).  To use it, you'll need to download
the May First/People Link certificate authority from here:

https://support.mayfirst.org/raw-attachment/wiki/mfpl_certificate_authority/mfpl.crt

(you can read information about the CA here:

https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/mfpl_certificate_authority

including links to download OpenPGP signatures (including one of my own)
over the CA, if you want to verify that you got the right thing).

store the certificate somewhere reasonable (e.g. in your .gnupg
directory, if you're going to be using this with gnupg), and then add
the following two lines to gpg.conf:

 keyserver hkps://zimmermann.mayfirst.org
 keyserver-options ca-cert-file=/path/to/your/.gnupg/mfpl.crt

(note that you'll want to replace the path with the actual path you used
on your system).

Alternately, if you want to do this configuration entirely through
enigmail, you can go to the preferences (check "display expert
settings"), click on "keyserver" tab, and set your keyserver to
"hkps://zimmermann.mayfirst.org" (without the quotes).

Then, in the "Advanced" tab, under "additional parameters for GnuPG,
enter: "--keyserver-options ca-cert-file=/path/to/your/.gnupg/mfpl.crt"
(again, without the quotes, and using the actual path to your copy of
the MFPL CA cert.

hope this helps, and i'm glad to answer questions about the setup.

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091109/7c4da3b7/attachment.bin>

From junk4 at klunky.co.uk  Mon Nov  9 07:15:10 2009
From: junk4 at klunky.co.uk (J4)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:15:10 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Key server access from behind a firewall
In-Reply-To: <4AF83073.9070509@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4AF80ACA.5060300@klunky.co.uk>
	<4AF83073.9070509@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4AF831FE.4070009@klunky.co.uk>

Thank-you Daniel.
It is certainly an excellent idea.  I shall look into this as well as my
SSH tunneling solution.

j.

Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/09/2009 07:27 AM, J4 wrote:
>> 	I am behind a corporate firewall but would like to use the keyservers
>> from within Enigmail to verify keys.
>  [...]
>> How about forwarding 127.0.0.1:11371 to pgp.mit.edu:11371  ?  Would this
>> work?
> 
> Does your firewall block *all* outbound access, including access to the
> web?  many keyservers are available over port 80 as well as the standard
> hkp port.
> 
> If the cleartext HKP traffic is what is causing trouble (or if you need
> to use a proxy or something, perhaps using a keyserver over hkps
> (hkp-over-tls) would work?  HKPS is available as of the latest versions
> of GnuPG (1.4.10 and 2.0.13).
> 
> zimmermann.mayfirst.org is the only hkps keyserver that i know about
> (i'm one of the maintainers of it).  To use it, you'll need to download
> the May First/People Link certificate authority from here:
> 
> https://support.mayfirst.org/raw-attachment/wiki/mfpl_certificate_authority/mfpl.crt
> 
> (you can read information about the CA here:
> 
> https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/mfpl_certificate_authority
> 
> including links to download OpenPGP signatures (including one of my own)
> over the CA, if you want to verify that you got the right thing).
> 
> store the certificate somewhere reasonable (e.g. in your .gnupg
> directory, if you're going to be using this with gnupg), and then add
> the following two lines to gpg.conf:
> 
>  keyserver hkps://zimmermann.mayfirst.org
>  keyserver-options ca-cert-file=/path/to/your/.gnupg/mfpl.crt
> 
> (note that you'll want to replace the path with the actual path you used
> on your system).
> 
> Alternately, if you want to do this configuration entirely through
> enigmail, you can go to the preferences (check "display expert
> settings"), click on "keyserver" tab, and set your keyserver to
> "hkps://zimmermann.mayfirst.org" (without the quotes).
> 
> Then, in the "Advanced" tab, under "additional parameters for GnuPG,
> enter: "--keyserver-options ca-cert-file=/path/to/your/.gnupg/mfpl.crt"
> (again, without the quotes, and using the actual path to your copy of
> the MFPL CA cert.
> 
> hope this helps, and i'm glad to answer questions about the setup.
> 
> 	--dkg
> 

From ayush.cena at gmail.com  Mon Nov  9 07:21:51 2009
From: ayush.cena at gmail.com (ayush sharma)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:21:51 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF82C59.3050501@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
	<ba2ebc620911090524vb7cec55qe3e402aa703a4649@mail.gmail.com> 
	<4AF82C59.3050501@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <ba2ebc620911090721p1b432aegda11ee8962d03e85@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robert,
               Thanks for your reply.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>wrote:

> ayush sharma wrote:
>
> This is not true.  Put a strong passphrase on your private key and you
> could safely publish it in the _New York Times_.  It is a wild
> exaggeration to say it makes it "extremely easy."
>
>
True. Of course, what I meant was that it's all relative. Usually add-ons
like Enigmail won't let you have a 1 bit key. ;) I mean, if the length and
randomness of your key, and passphrase are comparable, of course they would
be equally as hard to break. It's just that for the average guy, they are
not even close. Though I do agree, I should have included this note as well.
The usual lengths of passphrases are 30 characters to be really optimistic
(8 bits per character = 240 bits in all). The keys are at least 1024 bits.
Not to get into the extreme discussion of randomness (which of course
depends upon the scenario and environment, I am not talking about generating
keys on some defective system that only allows a possible of 200 keys or
something) of either one of them, it is a safe thing to state that for the
/average case/, they don't even come close. Though I totally agree on your
statement, it all depends on the parameters of your key/passphrase.



>
> Many do.  This is not to say that most do, or that it is recommended
> practice.
>

What I meant was not in the OpenPGP scenario, but in the normal world
scenario. I know I can always rely on you to make me be more specific. ;) I
meant that in the normal world scenario, we have at least 80% users who use
dictionary words for passwords/passphrase for some account or the other,
which has some reason to be kept "safe" (I am accounting for Email use,
login passwords and the works). Of course, the OpenPGP users are way better
than the average demographic in this regard, and well to reiterate, I wasn't
talking about the OpenPGP scenario for this case. :)

>
>
> This is why OpenPGP's S2K algorithms are so slow and difficult to speed
> up.  Brute forcing an OpenPGP passphrase is going to be orders of
> magnitude slower than trying to brute force a simpler system.  The
> OpenPGP authors were very much aware of the risks of dictionary attacks
> and put specific countermeasures in the specification to fight them.
>
>
I didn't know that. Sweet!


>  > But, how many users actually do that? Not a lot
>
> This is an argument in favor of teaching people correct OpenPGP usage,
> not teaching people that just possessing the secret key is an automatic
> disaster.
>
>
It's not an automatic disaster, but it is one step closer to a 'disaster'. A
bad move, depends on how you view this.
Additional note: The keys I use for some confidential government work need
at least a 90 character passphrase. If even a part of my secret key gets
compromised, I have to immediately do a lot of 'repair-work'. Of course, we
can't even think about storing, or using them on machines connected to the
Internet. Though you are right, it's not an automatic disaster, but unless
your passphrase is pretty long, you may have a cause of concern.


> > The main reason for them reasoning that you keep your secret key
> > secure, is coz it is meant to be /secure/. You don't want the
> > adversary having an upper hand while he wants to obtain your key-pair
> >  for his malicious use. It's just their way of improving your odds
> > against your adversary. :)
>
> Getting access to your machine is a lot easier than you think, Ayush.
> Depending on who you talk to, between 15% and 60% of all desktop
> machines are already pwn3d.  Most of these machines are running
> antivirus and have owners who say that of course their machines are
> secure since they're running antivirus software and a firewall.
>

I kinda know that Robert. That's a major part of my job here. :)
Depending on how safe you want your data, you have to make decisions on
where and how you want to use it. The same goes with all our daily
possessions, and electronic data should hopefully be no more different.


>
> Speaking for myself, I don't know if my machine is pwn3d.  I don't think
> it is.  I can give some reasons to back that up.  But I don't know --
> all I do know is I don't want to blindly assume I'm not part of the
> 15-to-60-percent.
>

Since when did following things blindly become on the things us 'hackers'
do? ;)


> Today, thanks to the explosion of the internet, we need to assume "it is
> easy for an attacker to get your secret keys, if you store them on a
> device which is ever connected to the internet", and passphrases need to
> be strong enough to stand up to major, concerted attack.
>
> True that!

Thank you, and Hope you have a great day ahead,
Best Regards,
-A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091109/e947f5e8/attachment.html>

From dan at mozilla-enigmail.org  Tue Nov 10 02:48:06 2009
From: dan at mozilla-enigmail.org (Daniele Raffo)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:48:06 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> Not in the QSG, no.  We were at one point going to write a much longer
> Enigmail handbook, but so far it remains unwritten.  (Which is mostly my
> fault.)

Well, it is in the process of being written (cf. my mail to the
Enigmail-Devel list, 03/09/2009 20:34).  It counts 60 pages so far, and
when I have an acceptably complete draft I'll submit it to
Enigmail-Devel for review.  Just a bit of patience...

- --
Dan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkr5ROYACgkQW9ZLGa9iatT39QCcCMmRD/EDiNkPPuibyQG7ufMD
cxUAn0YxtIEcJVeWgVsP3qZoSEKHFb/F
=KMkh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Tue Nov 10 07:47:21 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:47:21 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4AF98B09.7020008@hammernoch.net>

Hi,

Patrick Brunschwig wrote on 08.11.09 15:14:

> John is right, the today's Enigmail builds work fine with latest
> Shredder builds. The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
> from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.

I'm back today, build is uploaded and runs fine with todays Shredder
(Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6pre)
Gecko/20091110 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre)

Enjoy ;-)

Ludwig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091110/051ca0ed/attachment.bin>

From olav at seyfarth.de  Tue Nov 10 08:08:50 2009
From: olav at seyfarth.de (Olav Seyfarth)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:50 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Dan,

60 pages?! People should still *want* to read it ...

Olav
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Diese Email ist digital signiert und/oder verschl?sselt
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkr5kBIACgkQL/NBt8fdKe2W/ACdFXxFPUUxUCom4qwkxS2kHDVn
0j4An3yfZEbNBj2GsMXY4z0MtS5CS+UD
=2uXG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From alaric at metrocast.net  Tue Nov 10 08:23:45 2009
From: alaric at metrocast.net (Phil Stracchino)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:23:45 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
Message-ID: <4AF99391.20600@metrocast.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Olav Seyfarth wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> 60 pages?! People should still *want* to read it ...

So, put the most commonly used information up front, go into more detail
later, and index it well.  That makes it easy for people who don't want
to read the whole thing to only read as much as they need.


- --
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAkr5k5EACgkQ0DfOju+hMkm4ggCghaRtcm7vXfpUmJUtpGvThzrI
OfAAoLydbzJSRz8/U6kLS7QTcl7L/0cq
=ZeI8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Tue Nov 10 09:08:42 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:08:42 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF98B09.7020008@hammernoch.net>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4AF98B09.7020008@hammernoch.net>
Message-ID: <4AF99E1A.6000001@mozillamessaging.com>

On 10/11/09 16:47, Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Patrick Brunschwig wrote on 08.11.09 15:14:
>
>   
>> John is right, the today's Enigmail builds work fine with latest
>> Shredder builds. The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
>> from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.
>>     
> I'm back today, build is uploaded and runs fine with todays Shredder
> (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6pre)
> Gecko/20091110 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre)
>
> Enjoy ;-)
>   
Thanks a bunch

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091110/bc8f71f9/attachment.bin>

From ludovic at hirlimann.net  Sun Nov  8 05:16:29 2009
From: ludovic at hirlimann.net (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:16:29 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>
	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4AF6C4AD.5070304@hirlimann.net>

On 08/11/09 13:29, John W. Moore III wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
>
>    
>> lastest version of enigmail + latest version fo shredder are not
>> compatible. When you try to send , shredder get's confused about email
>> accounts being new accounts. and sending doesn't occur.
>>
>> Regression is from commit from the last two days - something makes
>> enigmail unhappy - as disabling it makes sending email functionnal again.
>>      
> I also experienced 'issues' yesterday after installing the Enigmail
> Nightly 20091107 into Shredder 20091106.  This combination caused
> Tb3.0pre to crash whenever Sign/Encrypt was invoked.  Once I downloaded
> the Shredder Nightly 20091107 the problem was resolved.  :)
>
> I am sending this message with Shredder 20091107&  Enigmail Nightly
> 20091108.
>
>    
Doesn't work on mac , it get's confused all the time about accounts. 
Note that I have more than one identity for most of my accounts.

Ludo

-- 
http://perso.hirlimann.net/~ludo/blog/
http://flickr.com/photos/lhirlimann


From jarif at iki.fi  Tue Nov 10 10:00:02 2009
From: jarif at iki.fi (Jari Fredriksson)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:00:02 +0200
Subject: [Enigmail] Enigmail is broken with latest nightly
In-Reply-To: <4AF98B09.7020008@hammernoch.net>
References: <4AF694F2.1010105@mozillamessaging.com>	<4AF6B99B.9070604@bellsouth.net>	<4AF6D24B.8080600@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4AF98B09.7020008@hammernoch.net>
Message-ID: <4AF9AA22.7000201@iki.fi>



On 10.11.2009 17:47, Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Patrick Brunschwig wrote on 08.11.09 15:14:
> 
>> John is right, the today's Enigmail builds work fine with latest
>> Shredder builds. The only problem is that the Mac OS X builds are still
>> from 3rd November, because Ludwig (who creates them) is on a business trip.
> 
> I'm back today, build is uploaded and runs fine with todays Shredder
> (Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6pre)
> Gecko/20091110 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre)
> 
> Enjoy ;-)
> 

It does not work anymore with Thunderbird pre1 :(

Downloaded latest Shredder, and now back online ;)


-- 
http://www.iki.fi/jarif/

Tempt not a desperate man.
		-- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091110/362e29b6/attachment.bin>

From dan at mozilla-enigmail.org  Wed Nov 11 02:50:41 2009
From: dan at mozilla-enigmail.org (Daniele Raffo)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:50:41 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <mailman.421.1257869559.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.421.1257869559.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hde4u5$30f3$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Olav Seyfarth wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> 60 pages?! People should still *want* to read it ...
> 
> Olav

60 pages and counting.  Well, this is supposed to be *The* Enigmail
Handbook, and should contain everything there's to know about Enigmail.
For people that just want to have Enigmail up and running in a short
time, there's already the (IMHO excellent) Quick Start Guide written by
Robert Hansen.

Don't be scared, in the Handbook there are a lot of figures and
reference data that can be skipped ;)

- --
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkr6lwEACgkQW9ZLGa9iatTe0gCeL3YoBRIk+2aYtHF9fKp4iQ3l
IYwAniwi63GjXczlE90qAU2Zz0fHV5k5
=NhlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From tim at klingt.org  Thu Nov 12 04:15:31 2009
From: tim at klingt.org (Tim Blechmann)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:15:31 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] enigmail nightly build x86_64
Message-ID: <hdgu94$hki$1@ger.gmane.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

i saw, there is no nightly build of enigmail for linux/x86_64 ... since
it took me some time to set up a build environment, i thought it may be
helpful for some people, if i share my binary [1] ...

best, tim

[1] http://klingt.org/~tim/enigmail-0.97a-linux-x86_64.xpi

- -- 
tim at klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

Who need fossil fuel when the sun ain't goin' nowhere
  Amiri Baraka
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkr7/GEACgkQdL+4qsZfVstJCACeLLXnJ8B76OlSQnQjff6YOcAl
5I0An1M/t0+SP2fwbduU39jEMZJrHeBh
=otoh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Thu Nov 12 05:58:05 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:58:05 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] enigmail nightly build x86_64
In-Reply-To: <hdgu94$hki$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <hdgu94$hki$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <4AFC146D.4030100@sixdemonbag.org>

Tim Blechmann wrote:
> i saw, there is no nightly build of enigmail for linux/x86_64 ... since
> it took me some time to set up a build environment, i thought it may be
> helpful for some people, if i share my binary [1] ...

Thank you for doing this.  It will be more useful to people, though, if
you tell us what precise Linux distro it was built on, and if it was
built to work with their own Thunderbird or if you built your own from
source.


From tim at klingt.org  Thu Nov 12 07:29:39 2009
From: tim at klingt.org (Tim Blechmann)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:29:39 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] enigmail nightly build x86_64
In-Reply-To: <4AFC146D.4030100@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <hdgu94$hki$1@ger.gmane.org> <4AFC146D.4030100@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <4AFC29E3.5020309@klingt.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> i saw, there is no nightly build of enigmail for linux/x86_64 ... since
>> it took me some time to set up a build environment, i thought it may be
>> helpful for some people, if i share my binary [1] ...
> 
> Thank you for doing this.  It will be more useful to people, though, if
> you tell us what precise Linux distro it was built on, and if it was

ubuntu karmic

> built to work with their own Thunderbird or if you built your own from
> source.

enigmail was built against today's hg comm-central checkout ... i am
running it with the thunderbird 3 daily build ppa [1].

tim

[1] http://ppa.launchpad.net/ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa/ubuntu

- -- 
tim at klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait
for the answer.
  William S. Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkr8KeAACgkQdL+4qsZfVstK3ACgnwhrAzmhwvB+XWRkGH+0pcD0
9agAoJ7OZoIEiwsHFmSQ+a0NzDOE8t5V
=R5mk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Fri Nov 13 09:18:13 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:18:13 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
Message-ID: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>

I am starting to prepare a new version of Enigmail for Thunderbird 3.0.
I think that after more than 8 years of development, it's about time to
finally call it "1.0"!

For this, of course I'd like to have as many translations as possible
:-) Please send your translations directly to me. In case you don't know
how to translate Enigmail, instructions can be found here:
<http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/langpack.php#instruct>

Attached is the diff file between v0.96.0 and the next version -- as you
can see it's really not much. In case your language wasn't updated from
v0.95.7 to v0.97.0, I have also added the previous versions' diff.

I'd appreciate any translations until 27. November, hoping that by then
Thunderbird 3.0 will not yet be released.

-Patrick
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: diff.txt
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091113/96669fb7/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: diff-v0.95.7-v0.96.0.txt
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091113/96669fb7/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091113/96669fb7/attachment.bin>

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Fri Nov 13 10:25:17 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:25:17 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>

Hi Patrick--

On 11/13/2009 12:18 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> I am starting to prepare a new version of Enigmail for Thunderbird 3.0.
> I think that after more than 8 years of development, it's about time to
> finally call it "1.0"!

w00t!  thanks for all your work and dedication!

For some reason, your signature on this message seems to be invalid --
i've often noticed this when a multi-part message gets passed through
mailman.

I don't know if it's mailman mangling the message or if it's a flaw in
enigmail's verification of the PGP/MIME arrangements.

This message appears to have a MIME structure like:

A)-+-> multipart/mixed
B) +-+-> multipart/signed
C) | +-+->multipart/mixed
D) | | +-> text/plain (message body from Patrick)
E) | | +-> text/plain (diff.txt)
F) | | \-> text/plain (diff-v0.95.7-v0.96.0.txt)
G) | \-> application/pgp-signature (OpenPGP signature from Patrick)
H) \-> text/plain (mailman footer)

Can you verify the copy you received?  Can you verify the copy in your
sent folder?  I'd be happy to look into the problem further if you want
to forward them to me.  this kind of bug bothers me, and i'd like to see
it sorted out.

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091113/530a14c1/attachment.bin>

From bellastar5555 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 13 06:20:09 2009
From: bellastar5555 at gmail.com (Ella)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:20:09 -0800
Subject: [Enigmail]  Linux_x86_64-gcc3
Message-ID: <4D217330-DEBC-4919-9666-A5647F3A8CB5@gmail.com>

?? ????



From bellastar5555 at gmail.com  Fri Nov 13 07:08:55 2009
From: bellastar5555 at gmail.com (Ella)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:08:55 -0800
Subject: [Enigmail] Problem with Enigma on MAC
Message-ID: <7EB5985D-B749-43F0-A19F-5F8EE66C55B2@gmail.com>





From alexjsegura at gmail.com  Sun Nov 15 01:15:35 2009
From: alexjsegura at gmail.com (Alex J. Segura)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:15:35 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] delete
Message-ID: <4AFFC6B7.6010406@gmail.com>

How do I delete enigmail?

From mail at wolfgangroeckelein.de  Sun Nov 15 04:51:39 2009
From: mail at wolfgangroeckelein.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Dr=2E_Wolfgang_R=F6ckelein=22?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:51:39 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
Message-ID: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Hi,

the latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre; 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message 
with SeaMonkey 2.0 with 0.97a installed.

Meanwhile on the download page I get "The requested URL 
/download/nightly/nightly-status.html was not found on this server."

Also when posting to newsgroups with 0.97a installed, I get always a SeaMonkey 
Crash....

BTW What is the intended way to upgrade from 0.97a to 1.0pre? Do I need to 
remove 0.97a manually or should this happen autamatically?

Thanks,
   Wolfgang

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Sun Nov 15 05:04:48 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:04:48 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] delete
In-Reply-To: <4AFFC6B7.6010406@gmail.com>
References: <4AFFC6B7.6010406@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AFFFC70.8010208@hammernoch.net>

Hi,

Alex J. Segura wrote on 15.11.09 10:15:
> How do I delete enigmail?

Tools -> AddOns -> Radio-Button: "Extensions" -> Klick on Uninstall in
the row of "Enigmail". Restart Thunderbird or Seamonkey

HTH

Ludwig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/ae18811c/attachment.bin>

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov 15 09:48:56 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:48:56 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B003F08.4000806@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15.11.2009 13:51, "Dr. Wolfgang R?ckelein" wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> the latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre; 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible"
> message with SeaMonkey 2.0 with 0.97a installed.

That's correct. There was an API change that makes nightly Enigmail
builds incompatible with SeaMonkey 2.0. Furthermore, SeaMonkey 2.0 and
2.0.1 will be incompatible to each other because of that change (sorry,
that's mainly the fault of SeaMonkey developers who couldn't wait for
Thunderbird APIs to be frozen before releasing). Enigmail v1.0 will not
only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.

> Meanwhile on the download page I get "The requested URL
> /download/nightly/nightly-status.html was not found on this server."

This happens sometimes during the weekend when my provider performs some
maintenance.

> Also when posting to newsgroups with 0.97a installed, I get always a
> SeaMonkey Crash....

> BTW What is the intended way to upgrade from 0.97a to 1.0pre? Do I need
> to remove 0.97a manually or should this happen autamatically?

As long as you'll use nightly builds, you'll have to manually upgrade
(i.e. install the latest version). No uninstall needed before doing so.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwA/BncOpHodsOiwAQgQ7gf/dbP9ngwWvhFmgPA+Z0p4otq8tAHmfuxw
ONHJoik7W3YqzbruB4z0UfeRB83fSYGEvGB/JvAR+xKKFQHnNzGbNMm8kL5J3rn0
eiYHUIw3kbo48sxdDPL0670TakfEjKftgy1mWFuaRWlq/wHE0X6yxdXsk+zreMdl
/SHezefQx4kjdL/mO2eL/rjjtLmvcFSZ0vFyUyrzbbO0Hf7tcd+YgHnIitX1gESQ
gwLcmqUbbgBSxrA7j4VNCoJeSMx2VF/Jvsmkq1FlNI3yhSV2uuyxcRykOGdL3ag5
lmfL8d2gj9oblZK9l3EzCvW9knAICM/mfTQD2xq6aZIp6NMfWGi6Wg==
=yozL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov 15 09:58:34 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:58:34 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4B00414A.7070708@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 13.11.2009 19:25, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Patrick--
> 
> On 11/13/2009 12:18 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>> I am starting to prepare a new version of Enigmail for Thunderbird 3.0.
>> I think that after more than 8 years of development, it's about time to
>> finally call it "1.0"!
> 
> w00t!  thanks for all your work and dedication!
> 
> For some reason, your signature on this message seems to be invalid --
> i've often noticed this when a multi-part message gets passed through
> mailman.
> 
> I don't know if it's mailman mangling the message or if it's a flaw in
> enigmail's verification of the PGP/MIME arrangements.
> 
> This message appears to have a MIME structure like:
> 
> A)-+-> multipart/mixed
> B) +-+-> multipart/signed
> C) | +-+->multipart/mixed
> D) | | +-> text/plain (message body from Patrick)
> E) | | +-> text/plain (diff.txt)
> F) | | \-> text/plain (diff-v0.95.7-v0.96.0.txt)
> G) | \-> application/pgp-signature (OpenPGP signature from Patrick)
> H) \-> text/plain (mailman footer)

Right, that's the expected result.

> Can you verify the copy you received?  Can you verify the copy in your
> sent folder?  I'd be happy to look into the problem further if you want
> to forward them to me.  this kind of bug bothers me, and i'd like to see
> it sorted out.

The copy I received from mailman fails to verify on my end. But my sent
copy is OK.

I have compared what I sent with what I received. The problem is that
mailman apparently modifies the line: "Content-Type: multipart/mixed
..." (i.e. the header of part C). The original header as created by
Thunderbird spans over 2 lines, the "boundary=..." part in on a 2nd
line. The line as sent by mailman is on a single line :-(


- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwBBSXcOpHodsOiwAQjQ5wgAoxmdafLsQisL436uHmuGYtZIMoGuD/97
Rlo2UU0Mw1V8qhsNCsvc1CUO0OuH6dIQsyO4kJlMP10N4YanWz3MjXZupEfAdp4Y
xxDD//cSrp8URdsQs83c/DlBf2BzPMHpp/0j6/itmtGrEUDDVpHIUWRmKPgCt1Yh
Ynl/W9ObFSZrlWAyXAEQWRAYpLX4WT+nO+Ox0k8p3c88i6cYY1hstZrpROzKckjo
kAzVR04aW5FiiQUpg5k7x62Abt7Y6TuGOBhtiyXf/GiGdBhYUq+pZLqEsArX51tQ
Ydg/fTT5uLN/DBpkVJ6DUfTyDk8bBEdLkhBsTQ4177luiVF/2TuyNg==
=JlQ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Sun Nov 15 11:57:51 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:57:51 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4B00414A.7070708@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>	<4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>
	<4B00414A.7070708@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B005D3F.4070001@fifthhorseman.net>

On 11/15/2009 12:58 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> The copy I received from mailman fails to verify on my end. But my sent
> copy is OK.
> 
> I have compared what I sent with what I received. The problem is that
> mailman apparently modifies the line: "Content-Type: multipart/mixed
> ..." (i.e. the header of part C). The original header as created by
> Thunderbird spans over 2 lines, the "boundary=..." part in on a 2nd
> line. The line as sent by mailman is on a single line :-(

Very interesting!  according to section 3 of RFC 3156 (the PGP/MIME spec):

   Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
   as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3156#section-3

Since the header of part C is actually an element within part B (a
multipart/signed part), it appears that mailman is non-compliant with
RFC 3156.

Maybe this should be pushed to mailman's developers as a bug?

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/f040b573/attachment.bin>

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Sun Nov 15 12:56:55 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:56:55 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4B005D3F.4070001@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>	<4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>	<4B00414A.7070708@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4B005D3F.4070001@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4B006B17.10403@mozillamessaging.com>

On 15/11/09 20:57, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/15/2009 12:58 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>   
>> The copy I received from mailman fails to verify on my end. But my sent
>> copy is OK.
>>
>> I have compared what I sent with what I received. The problem is that
>> mailman apparently modifies the line: "Content-Type: multipart/mixed
>> ..." (i.e. the header of part C). The original header as created by
>> Thunderbird spans over 2 lines, the "boundary=..." part in on a 2nd
>> line. The line as sent by mailman is on a single line :-(
>>     
> Very interesting!  according to section 3 of RFC 3156 (the PGP/MIME spec):
>
>    Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
>    as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way
>
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3156#section-3
>
> Since the header of part C is actually an element within part B (a
> multipart/signed part), it appears that mailman is non-compliant with
> RFC 3156.
>
> Maybe this should be pushed to mailman's developers as a bug?
>
>   
The running version of mailman on mozdev would need to be checked first :-)

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/e23ed220/attachment.bin>

From wolfgang.roeckelein at wiwi.uni-regensburg.de  Sun Nov 15 13:07:09 2009
From: wolfgang.roeckelein at wiwi.uni-regensburg.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_R=F6ckelein?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:07:09 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdpqht$13lt$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Patrick Brunschwig wrote/schrieb on/am 15.11.2009 18:48:
> Enigmail v1.0 will not
> only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.

??

So 0.97a for SM 2.0 and 1.0pre/1.0 for SM 2.0.1/2.0.1pre?

Thanks,
  Wolfgang

From wolfgang.roeckelein at wiwi.uni-regensburg.de  Sun Nov 15 13:11:01 2009
From: wolfgang.roeckelein at wiwi.uni-regensburg.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_R=F6ckelein?=)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:11:01 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Patrick Brunschwig wrote/schrieb on/am 15.11.2009 18:48:
> Enigmail v1.0 will not
> only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.

??

So 0.97a for SM 2.0 and 1.0pre/1.0 for SM 2.0.1/2.0.1pre?

Thanks,
  Wolfgang

From faramir.cl at gmail.com  Sun Nov 15 20:04:48 2009
From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:04:48 -0300
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B00CF60.1070700@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Patrick Brunschwig escribi?:
> I am starting to prepare a new version of Enigmail for Thunderbird 3.0.
> I think that after more than 8 years of development, it's about time to
> finally call it "1.0"!
> 
> For this, of course I'd like to have as many translations as possible
> :-) Please send your translations directly to me. In case you don't know
> how to translate Enigmail, instructions can be found here:
> <http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/langpack.php#instruct>
> 
> Attached is the diff file between v0.96.0 and the next version -- as you
> can see it's really not much. In case your language wasn't updated from
> v0.95.7 to v0.97.0, I have also added the previous versions' diff.

  Do we just add the lines following a "+" sign from the diff file to
0.96 files, and remove the ones following a "-" sign?

  Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJLAM9gAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAZS8H+wQLJtkG/OgjTqk+ya4bfg1j
F0Pa881gBS0RHvruqRefP/esZUEPCzkl3TxYzY+6hrJpsgvmyGtWtOaTrwaQeXtd
j21K9fUZS48LvZe1s3TGHZVXGZmVg83h96AKtPcsukEwa4Tyl19YkxhOvfoL3Daf
ZTLU8Mj4t0T6WxJWqGyCXv20M0Yfuhzhb28/2Fm2/p5f4sdJrxsJMy/ZZQeUSxmK
QbqzO8knu9/qXCJIdFMJwXjoAA+7PqueZg6VdNIeaYZJr6BVgWjrWjQlwjQb5YLF
1cBMd0yT8xwsjEyTjaFuGRLAt2tytNH0xw/xamYvzd794AuI/6U6PLPxMGtyamU=
=epen
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 16 00:15:56 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:15:56 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4B006B17.10403@mozillamessaging.com>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>	<4AFDA48D.20106@fifthhorseman.net>	<4B00414A.7070708@mozilla-enigmail.org>	<4B005D3F.4070001@fifthhorseman.net>
	<4B006B17.10403@mozillamessaging.com>
Message-ID: <4B010A3C.4000409@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15.11.2009 21:56, Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
> On 15/11/09 20:57, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 11/15/2009 12:58 PM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>>   
>>> The copy I received from mailman fails to verify on my end. But my sent
>>> copy is OK.
>>>
>>> I have compared what I sent with what I received. The problem is that
>>> mailman apparently modifies the line: "Content-Type: multipart/mixed
>>> ..." (i.e. the header of part C). The original header as created by
>>> Thunderbird spans over 2 lines, the "boundary=..." part in on a 2nd
>>> line. The line as sent by mailman is on a single line :-(
>>>     
>> Very interesting!  according to section 3 of RFC 3156 (the PGP/MIME spec):
>>
>>    Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents
>>    as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way
>>
>>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3156#section-3
>>
>> Since the header of part C is actually an element within part B (a
>> multipart/signed part), it appears that mailman is non-compliant with
>> RFC 3156.
>>
>> Maybe this should be pushed to mailman's developers as a bug?
>>
>>   
> The running version of mailman on mozdev would need to be checked first :-)

That's not too difficult. The headers of your message are telling me:
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 ;-)

I was also thinking about filing a bug -- I'll do it.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwEKOncOpHodsOiwAQi9Wwf/TNuNAUwX3PzKMx90RsueCcsMppoF5Xbq
MeM5rGemH63N+G2HOYwNqbCF6+40HO9cCxnef0FEiRgckNchM/8gi5G1Re1Whqv3
TfZtY7USiySRMFYK/NTQwsfSVlWN755hmTvSCVZY0Mo+O4Qb3tdTuv+dO0FgIuk9
i3tRpSjFuoXWbHFAnqT02oRp/CEn/XDFX4lHFkKsFqQonSFqgE8rwadU2huMbUF/
PMaJKMdVy1q35Q1iTNpKnw134zTL8u3VS3QdI0+TwsGGcVrgbLzCit7TnIEoKUgC
0UK5Tsb3hLljMgD8Kg4cps5HMkZGIkzPkaDf5wBKpI6Mwvj1OlT19Q==
=ACc2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 16 00:17:45 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:17:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B010AA9.40502@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 15.11.2009 22:11, Wolfgang R?ckelein wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig wrote/schrieb on/am 15.11.2009 18:48:
>> Enigmail v1.0 will not
>> only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.
> 
> ??
> 
> So 0.97a for SM 2.0 and 1.0pre/1.0 for SM 2.0.1/2.0.1pre?

+/- yes. Unfortunately there's an overlap of ca. 1 week between the API
change and the Enigmail version number change.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwEKqHcOpHodsOiwAQjuHAf+JKk1W8y63l0W9kYmaiR4CzTWJ2nHtEjU
lVdvZgYZWLBYi8JG5nHF2w+QzX7SswOGw6x6WKRbqTg92HU7nlR6171Wd5ml+Ny7
tfgvY/wBwYe4VA+x7g4dF68jKA8Ftcz1E0iEdu3JY+UCVzcJPo3dd4KrVePiWPeJ
2dfQt14uxGkJhyF2jthFP+UCvEPizwbZDsh2Lw+YnoW0h6sxS6+WDD3zb65BqxMY
3ZdyFPE4kVuY6AV+DaXl5Cewbsvrj1G5yW+duKgE1/hK9v/zFdB83PZC7zBcdoz/
8xTVw6CYGCptVEvARsXMFjWqYp3J0V1t/PZi3EGwzHoJBO7NLO7UaA==
=aePp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Mon Nov 16 00:28:56 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:28:56 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - Translations Needed
In-Reply-To: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AFD94D5.60609@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B010D48.4030301@mozillamessaging.com>

On 13/11/09 18:18, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> I'd appreciate any translations until 27. November, hoping that by then
> Thunderbird 3.0 will not yet be released.
>   
When I relayed your message , I got a hint from a french localizer
asking why you were not using something called babelzilla
<http://www.babelzilla.org/>.

I though I'd relay the hint infor here. I have personnaly never used it
so I can't really tel if it's worth using.

Ludo

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091116/c68bfc56/attachment.bin>

From michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm  Mon Nov 16 07:19:10 2009
From: michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm (Michael J Gruber)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:19:10 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Import from keyserver not working (T3beta)
In-Reply-To: <hc71bg$15f7$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hc71bg$15f7$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdrqjm$1tpo$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 27.10.2009 15:50:
> Hi there,
> 
> is "import from keyserver" supposed to be working with T3beta
> (comm-1.9.1)? Specifically, after clicking on details, Enigmail asks
> (for confirmation and) for the key server and then gives an alert saying:
> 
> Error - No valid armored OpenPGP data block found
> 
> After clicking that away, a dialog is open (Downloading OpenPGP Keys),
> with progress bar at 100%, OK greyed out. This happens reproducibly for
> keys which I can "gpg --recv-key" without problems.
> 
> Builds:
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091027
> Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre
> 
> Enigmail version 0.97a (20091023-1604)
> 
> Fedora 11 x86
> 
> And yes, tested with a different profile, although this used to work in
> my main profile.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 

So, this has been failing consistently, though I did not try every
single day. I happily report that now it works again! Unfortunately, I
don't know whether it's due to my switch to Fedora 12, the comm-1.9.1
progress or Enigmail's 1.0 maturity.

Cheers,
Michael

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091116
Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.1pre

Enigmail version 1.0 (20091116-1025)

Fedora 12 x86_64

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091116/d32883c4/attachment.bin>

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 16 07:39:56 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:39:56 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Import from keyserver not working (T3beta)
In-Reply-To: <hdrqjm$1tpo$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hc71bg$15f7$1@mozdev.mozdev.org> <hdrqjm$1tpo$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B01724C.8010406@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 16.11.2009 16:19, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 27.10.2009 15:50:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> is "import from keyserver" supposed to be working with T3beta
>> (comm-1.9.1)? Specifically, after clicking on details, Enigmail asks
>> (for confirmation and) for the key server and then gives an alert saying:
>>
>> Error - No valid armored OpenPGP data block found
>>
>> After clicking that away, a dialog is open (Downloading OpenPGP Keys),
>> with progress bar at 100%, OK greyed out. This happens reproducibly for
>> keys which I can "gpg --recv-key" without problems.
>>
>> Builds:
>> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5pre) Gecko/20091027
>> Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0pre
>>
>> Enigmail version 0.97a (20091023-1604)
>>
>> Fedora 11 x86
>>
>> And yes, tested with a different profile, although this used to work in
>> my main profile.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
> 
> So, this has been failing consistently, though I did not try every
> single day. I happily report that now it works again! Unfortunately, I
> don't know whether it's due to my switch to Fedora 12, the comm-1.9.1
> progress or Enigmail's 1.0 maturity.

I imagine that it's one of my recent fixes (deeeep down in the IPC
library ...)

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwFyS3cOpHodsOiwAQhItAf9EYyJ0bWTVOeGXvtjqDmmIlfogjOWbDda
PNX0cwNIk4yoswhYAvswRxbB7GFq3/U328FEwz8bCCXgpIejw5ACeU9M6VE0EWfo
jSOEEt7ek+r0shJqpF2U1506Up13LrMEDG0L5JtWZsmFzvqsWT4bxR3ywD/PovU1
6QSj9nh/gh//L8ZGfG+TuPTc5lFD629gJfHZLtREvL4Ks7seirCoSAd0kDbuwrKp
nE8RfJ2zl8Z5rH9GoZfQxfxQeEBvC+XvirYXLeC8rsmhiGMsJvYUdYxyLFHETJhN
gDzu+vbjWzD7eGMdllKKIaYmvw2glhaXrg+BgVMRrrIdkLnF6ksi9A==
=sHNC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From AlexIhrig at thunderbird-mail.de  Sun Nov 15 11:28:50 2009
From: AlexIhrig at thunderbird-mail.de (Alexander Ihrig)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:28:50 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - German [de] locale
In-Reply-To: <mailman.452.1258132719.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.452.1258132719.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdpkpn$di9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Hi Patrick,

hier die deutsche ?bersetzung. Ich habe die ?bersetzung mit dem
Nightlybuild 20091115 getestet und per compare-locales /
locale-inspector gepr?ft. Soweit alles in Ordnung. Die vor einiger Zeit
genannten Inkonsistenzen hatte ich zwischenzeitlich ja auch behoben.

Gru?
Alexander Ihrig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: enigmail-locale.jar
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 30849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/e450a29a/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/e450a29a/attachment-0001.bin>

From AlexIhrig at thunderbird-mail.de  Sun Nov 15 14:31:39 2009
From: AlexIhrig at thunderbird-mail.de (Alexander Ihrig)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:31:39 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Next Version of Enigmail - German [de] locale
In-Reply-To: <hdpkpn$di9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <mailman.452.1258132719.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hdpkpn$di9$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hdpvgd$1le2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Hallo Patrick,

ich habe gerade nochmals etwas gefixt und die Hilfedateien etwas an die
neue Version angepasst. Daher hier nochmal eine neue Version der
?bersetzung.

Gru?
Alex Ihrig

--- Urspr?nglicher Beitrag gesendet am Sonntag, 15. November 2009
20:28:50 von Alexander Ihrig <AlexIhrig at thunderbird-mail.de> ---

> Hi Patrick,
> 
> hier die deutsche ?bersetzung. Ich habe die ?bersetzung mit dem
> Nightlybuild 20091115 getestet und per compare-locales /
> locale-inspector gepr?ft. Soweit alles in Ordnung. Die vor einiger Zeit
> genannten Inkonsistenzen hatte ich zwischenzeitlich ja auch behoben.
> 
> Gru?
> Alexander Ihrig
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: enigmail-locale.jar
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 30755 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/fdfb1892/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091115/fdfb1892/attachment-0001.bin>

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Tue Nov 17 11:10:50 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:10:50 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
Message-ID: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>

hi enigmail folks--

Among the other hats i wear, i'm the debian developer for FireGPG.
Looking at maintaining that package for the long term, i'm a bit worried
about the staleness of its embedded copy of the source of IPC.  As i
understand it, multiple extensions can currently potentially use the IPC
module, but they ship different versions.  e.g. FireFTP, Enigmail, and
FireGPG all seem to use some flavor (modified?) of IPC.

One option that occurs to me is to build and distribute the IPC module
("component"? "shared object"? "xpcom thingy"?) separately from the
other extensions, and make those extensions depend explicitly on the IPC
module.

So i guess i'm interested in people's thoughts about which versions of
ipc would be good candidates for this kind of distribution (if any), and
what gotchas i might run into.

i'm also a bit new to this level of detail for binary xpcom object
distribution -- if IPC is distributed separately, would it need to have
its own install.rdf identifying the .xpt and .so (or .dll or .dynlib or
whatever binary form your arch prefers)?

In trying to figure out what's going on, I've imported the ipc source
into a git repo, and added tags indicating the latest version used by
fireftp 1.0.6 and firegpg 0.7.10.  For those interested:

 git://lair.fifthhorseman.net/~dkg/nsipc

Once TB3 is released, would it be possible for enigmail and firegpg to
use the same IPC component underneath the hood if it was installed
correctly?

Note: i'm also aware that there's continuing activity on an upstream bug
trying to get IPC integrated into some future version of xulrunner:

  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68702

any insight into how this would relate to a proposal to package and
distribute IPC directly?

Feel free to tell me this is a crazy idea if you think it is -- i'd like
to understand the problem better.

Regards,

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091117/35509e66/attachment.bin>

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Wed Nov 18 00:23:45 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:23:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
In-Reply-To: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 17.11.2009 20:10, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> hi enigmail folks--
> 
> Among the other hats i wear, i'm the debian developer for FireGPG.
> Looking at maintaining that package for the long term, i'm a bit worried
> about the staleness of its embedded copy of the source of IPC.  As i
> understand it, multiple extensions can currently potentially use the IPC
> module, but they ship different versions.  e.g. FireFTP, Enigmail, and
> FireGPG all seem to use some flavor (modified?) of IPC.
> 
> One option that occurs to me is to build and distribute the IPC module
> ("component"? "shared object"? "xpcom thingy"?) separately from the
> other extensions, and make those extensions depend explicitly on the IPC
> module.
> 
> So i guess i'm interested in people's thoughts about which versions of
> ipc would be good candidates for this kind of distribution (if any), and
> what gotchas i might run into.
> 
> i'm also a bit new to this level of detail for binary xpcom object
> distribution -- if IPC is distributed separately, would it need to have
> its own install.rdf identifying the .xpt and .so (or .dll or .dynlib or
> whatever binary form your arch prefers)?
> 
> In trying to figure out what's going on, I've imported the ipc source
> into a git repo, and added tags indicating the latest version used by
> fireftp 1.0.6 and firegpg 0.7.10.  For those interested:
> 
>  git://lair.fifthhorseman.net/~dkg/nsipc

Why would this be necessary? The IPC source code is already hosted in
the enigmail CVS tree; if you want to compile ipc, then just take the
complete ipc directory and to a "make" followed "make -C build" and
you'll have a shared library of IPC. All you'd need to do is to create
an install.rdf file if you want to offer it as separate XPI.

> Once TB3 is released, would it be possible for enigmail and firegpg to
> use the same IPC component underneath the hood if it was installed
> correctly?

In theory yes, but only as long as Firefox and Thunderbird are using the
same mozilla base (currently gecko-1.9.1). Firefox 3.6 and Thunderbird
have independent release schedules, e.g. FF 3.6 will be based on
gecko-1.9.2 and TB.next is not yet defined. So I would not bet on this
at all. You could end up with a lot of work in rewriting makefiles for
not much results

> Note: i'm also aware that there's continuing activity on an upstream bug
> trying to get IPC integrated into some future version of xulrunner:
> 
>   https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68702

I think you are not aware that I already created a (minimal) web page
last year where I host the IPC source code (independently from Enigmail)
as well as precompiled binaries for Windows and Linux to be used for
Xulrunner and Firefox. I'm planning to update them soon since I have
recently fixed some bugs in IPC. The link is in the bug you mentioned:
http://mozilla-enigmail.org/ipc/

> any insight into how this would relate to a proposal to package and
> distribute IPC directly?
> 
> Feel free to tell me this is a crazy idea if you think it is -- i'd like
> to understand the problem better.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwOvEHcOpHodsOiwAQgxIggApnw7J9kJFCdy5ANi1D3XbkIqnl034Xky
LD8nix5XPIZ3ZLNaqVqAzpKSPJAfj0VQ2SkV6BOfvDDxHvIpybJNpoGDditzV7S/
VExubkY7znesYaxNBqPWyYhRHeh/UtNVBGHZ47SnQolBhpebqbBFc9ziGg2KQNGY
nosEKHg1SGT0zmMK8fgKmrnhhPNBaCM8enK9/ZSx9Aa3vdxQMGHEjhK3PnfzLtxZ
7k6x/hGmcg7iUQyaoQOrzp8hD66M+T+5hgsF+h49o7aFLkdxj8N18g4CASPTuunZ
uqiBP53Uv+lGKcdOXAx5fgpZgAubtGwvB4CWzPvlDo/z0zPHtnz7Rg==
=d+Rr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Wed Nov 18 01:03:40 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:03:40 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
In-Reply-To: <4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>
	<4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B03B86C.4040304@mozillamessaging.com>

On 18/11/09 09:23, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> > Once TB3 is released, would it be possible for enigmail and firegpg to
> > use the same IPC component underneath the hood if it was installed
> > correctly?
>
> In theory yes, but only as long as Firefox and Thunderbird are using the
> same mozilla base (currently gecko-1.9.1). Firefox 3.6 and Thunderbird
> have independent release schedules, e.g. FF 3.6 will be based on
> gecko-1.9.2 and TB.next is not yet defined. So I would not bet on this
> at all. You could end up with a lot of work in rewriting makefiles for
> not much results
Current plan is to catch up with Firefox,  but by then Firefox would
probably be somewhere else ...
(https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Dmose/Tb_Post-3.0_Scratchpad). You seem
to forget that enigmail is also a Seamonkey extension, so you'd need to
have three variable in your maintainance equation.

Ludovic

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091118/dadfb3fd/attachment.bin>

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Wed Nov 18 04:47:04 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:47:04 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Header Icons?
Message-ID: <4B03ECC8.4000706@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

What has happened to the Envelope & Padlock icons in the Header of
Emails.  Are they victims of the API change in Tb3?

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Wednesday 18 Nov 2009, 07:47  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLA+zGAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPkKEH/3Sje5n3MXD0CSNqlzONRTwi
mdh1Jil0BqgD8u3k89fjU6QxbqYILUBI3W8c917YKdG0Mx5S99R/JmtD1ezWZJ1w
R2XLcr6DGCT7OkD9VqtTPQ/u6ui39FBJo9T6/QkGPF3MnxORbQ+KNzJPEklUBZ00
urOsEYfbMK2RLofv0Tk1+xUDlVUxfJmRHfMCIOhqNcx6S0e+W3OwS441uC4X1dJw
h/fVcws4nrJ8cnD4XrH5lntkiWlAb2n1KdLC6aicoUH6P3jIVGVZ0wV/psnL+lrU
ZZNTXl7bjFr2/ROx54+uBqd9ljI4otr3t8HwBJtth205YDDpM/jDu5sG80c924s=
=FQHa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From ludovic at mozillamessaging.com  Wed Nov 18 04:50:38 2009
From: ludovic at mozillamessaging.com (Ludovic Hirlimann)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:50:38 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Header Icons?
In-Reply-To: <4B03ECC8.4000706@bellsouth.net>
References: <4B03ECC8.4000706@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B03ED9E.5030809@mozillamessaging.com>

On 18/11/09 13:47, John W. Moore III wrote:
> What has happened to the Envelope & Padlock icons in the Header of
> Emails.  Are they victims of the API change in Tb3?

They got update to newer style icons. See bug 526909
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526909> - and bug bug
515729 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=515729>

Ludo

-- 
Ludovic Hirlimann MozillaMessaging QA lead
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/79/2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091118/68c2b54a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091118/68c2b54a/attachment.bin>

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Wed Nov 18 05:11:40 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:11:40 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Header Icons?
In-Reply-To: <4B03ED9E.5030809@mozillamessaging.com>
References: <4B03ECC8.4000706@bellsouth.net>
	<4B03ED9E.5030809@mozillamessaging.com>
Message-ID: <4B03F28C.6020904@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
> On 18/11/09 13:47, John W. Moore III wrote:
>> What has happened to the Envelope & Padlock icons in the Header of
>> Emails.  Are they victims of the API change in Tb3?
> 
> They got update to newer style icons. See bug 526909
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526909> - and bug bug
> 515729 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=515729>

Oh.  I asked because I don't see them in Build ID: 20091117033618.

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Wednesday 18 Nov 2009, 08:11  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLA/KKAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPOvIH/0vy8xOnVAEZ7eJ4x2R5Xk/F
ZP+/REb9b+h+NhCFmfrVmxCT2uIewQsB+ZOOBVV7OucIZBr+n/6d4pMT+Y4GKqYP
Wj8I6yAocRUj3GYh70SyK6kPYpxk+gyGfpi9uqwZnaZwTAyWB7aWYTiIaILnM53m
DWhR3jOapO2xsR6phJZU5c2GscidyEtjPgo5GGd9d6zZ8qRK9yhB3sVdnXM6edz0
GSrnA6VW1BgCI+G+bMQ9qG659F6ObQKAR8T6NAU/kF8xf4fQ1VZovE4+G80eSCDy
N1t7R520Si+8B6qrn+ffT6cGXz/M8XrmECNEp8LmfftF6IidfO1m+/hz4OcNQHw=
=1I6B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From moznews...hb at calen.de  Wed Nov 18 09:14:04 2009
From: moznews...hb at calen.de (moznews...hb at calen.de)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:14:04 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <mailman.471.1258359480.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.471.1258359480.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <he1dhc.3c0.1@xcalen.de>

Patrick Brunschwig schrieb:
> On 15.11.2009 22:11, Wolfgang R?ckelein wrote:
>> Patrick Brunschwig wrote/schrieb on/am 15.11.2009 18:48:
>>> Enigmail v1.0 will not only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.
>> ??

I don't understand that too. What means "will not only work"?

>> So 0.97a for SM 2.0 and 1.0pre/1.0 for SM 2.0.1/2.0.1pre?
> 
> +/- yes. Unfortunately there's an overlap of ca. 1 week between the API 
> change and the Enigmail version number change.

Since yesterday I can't sign emails any more with SeaMonkey/2.0.1pre
(rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091117 and Enigmail version 1.0 (20091118-0608).

Do you recommend people to step back to Seamonkey 2.0 and Enigmail 0.97a+
who want a working solution?

Hb

From moznews...hb at calen.de  Wed Nov 18 09:54:45 2009
From: moznews...hb at calen.de (moznews...hb at calen.de)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:54:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <he1dhc.3c0.1@xcalen.de>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.471.1258359480.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<he1dhc.3c0.1@xcalen.de>
Message-ID: <he1ftm.2mk.1@xcalen.de>

moznews...hb at calen.de schrieb:
> Since yesterday I can't sign emails any more with SeaMonkey/2.0.1pre
> (rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091117 and Enigmail version 1.0 (20091118-0608).

Correction: After some install runs signing works now.

Hb

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Wed Nov 18 10:15:18 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?UTF-8?B?THVkd2lnIEjDvGdlbHNjaMOkZmVy?=)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:15:18 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <he1dhc.3c0.1@xcalen.de>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdpqpj$16er$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.471.1258359480.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<he1dhc.3c0.1@xcalen.de>
Message-ID: <4B0439B6.10306@hammernoch.net>

"moznews...hb"@calen.de wrote on 18.11.09 18:14:
> Patrick Brunschwig schrieb:
>> On 15.11.2009 22:11, Wolfgang R?ckelein wrote:
>>> Patrick Brunschwig wrote/schrieb on/am 15.11.2009 18:48:
>>>> Enigmail v1.0 will not only work with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer.
>>> ??
> 
> I don't understand that too. What means "will not only work"?

The "not" is too much. Right statement: "Enigmail v1.0 will only work
with SeaMonkey 2.0.1pre and newer."

(...skipping solved signing problem...)

> Do you recommend people to step back to Seamonkey 2.0 and Enigmail 0.97a+
> who want a working solution?

This should only be a temporary solution until SM 2.0.1 (or whatever
version identifier it gets) is released, then change to Enigmail 1.0.
Patrick removed some bugs in Enigmail 1.0 that are remaining in 0.97a/b.

Ludwig

BTW: If somebody needs a nightly Enigmail version for Mac OS X prior to
1.0 please contact me directly.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091118/f8c8650a/attachment.bin>

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Wed Nov 18 11:53:50 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:53:50 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
In-Reply-To: <4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>
	<4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B0450CE.3070305@fifthhorseman.net>

On 11/18/2009 03:23 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> Why would this be necessary? The IPC source code is already hosted in
> the enigmail CVS tree; 

Right, your CVS tree is what i based my git repo off of.  However, the
code is also hosted in the fireftp CVS tree, and (as a monolithic
tarball) in the firegpg svn repo.

> if you want to compile ipc, then just take the
> complete ipc directory and to a "make" followed "make -C build" and
> you'll have a shared library of IPC. All you'd need to do is to create
> an install.rdf file if you want to offer it as separate XPI.

ok, thanks, this was the technical information i needed confirmation
for.  now, on to the "is this a sane idea?" discussion ;)

> In theory yes, but only as long as Firefox and Thunderbird are using the
> same mozilla base (currently gecko-1.9.1). Firefox 3.6 and Thunderbird
> have independent release schedules, e.g. FF 3.6 will be based on
> gecko-1.9.2 and TB.next is not yet defined. So I would not bet on this
> at all. You could end up with a lot of work in rewriting makefiles for
> not much results

hrm, yeah, that sounds potentially hairy.  But on the other hand, if
there are serious problems fixed by newer versions of IPC, it'd also be
nice to be able to solve those problems without having to update each
independent extension that relies on IPC.  The library linkage and
compatibility problems have already been fairly well-solved in
OS-specific worlds, but that seems to not be the case with a
majorly-cross-platform tool like mozilla yet.

So i'm not satisfied with the copying of source between projects (see
for example debian's rationales for opposing embedded code [0]), but i'm
not sure i see a clear way out of the mess either, given the various
dependency issues.  i'll take it up with the debian mozilla extensions
packaging team to see if anyone has any good ideas there.

> I think you are not aware that I already created a (minimal) web page
> last year where I host the IPC source code (independently from Enigmail)
> as well as precompiled binaries for Windows and Linux to be used for
> Xulrunner and Firefox. I'm planning to update them soon since I have
> recently fixed some bugs in IPC. The link is in the bug you mentioned:
> http://mozilla-enigmail.org/ipc/

Yes, i'm aware of that, and i should have included it in my earlier
message.  Thanks for doing it (and thanks for explicitly tagging the CVS
tree with your versioned releases also, that's very useful).

i'd like to provide pre-compiled binaries for all the architectures
debian supports if possible, and i certainly don't expect you to do that
on your own.  And your mention of the need to provide updated builds to
fix bugs in IPC reinforces my sense that IPC should be distributed
separately if we can figure out how to do that cleanly.

	--dkg

[0] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.announce/1136


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091118/83e70b01/attachment.bin>

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Thu Nov 19 02:51:39 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:51:39 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
In-Reply-To: <4B0450CE.3070305@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>	<4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4B0450CE.3070305@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4B05233B.2070109@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 18.11.2009 20:53, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/18/2009 03:23 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
>> Why would this be necessary? The IPC source code is already hosted in
>> the enigmail CVS tree; 
> 
> Right, your CVS tree is what i based my git repo off of.  However, the
> code is also hosted in the fireftp CVS tree, and (as a monolithic
> tarball) in the firegpg svn repo.

autch, I didn't know this :-(

>> if you want to compile ipc, then just take the
>> complete ipc directory and to a "make" followed "make -C build" and
>> you'll have a shared library of IPC. All you'd need to do is to create
>> an install.rdf file if you want to offer it as separate XPI.
> 
> ok, thanks, this was the technical information i needed confirmation
> for.  now, on to the "is this a sane idea?" discussion ;)
> 
>> In theory yes, but only as long as Firefox and Thunderbird are using the
>> same mozilla base (currently gecko-1.9.1). Firefox 3.6 and Thunderbird
>> have independent release schedules, e.g. FF 3.6 will be based on
>> gecko-1.9.2 and TB.next is not yet defined. So I would not bet on this
>> at all. You could end up with a lot of work in rewriting makefiles for
>> not much results
> 
> hrm, yeah, that sounds potentially hairy.  But on the other hand, if
> there are serious problems fixed by newer versions of IPC, it'd also be
> nice to be able to solve those problems without having to update each
> independent extension that relies on IPC.  The library linkage and
> compatibility problems have already been fairly well-solved in
> OS-specific worlds, but that seems to not be the case with a
> majorly-cross-platform tool like mozilla yet.
> 
> So i'm not satisfied with the copying of source between projects (see
> for example debian's rationales for opposing embedded code [0]), but i'm
> not sure i see a clear way out of the mess either, given the various
> dependency issues.  i'll take it up with the debian mozilla extensions
> packaging team to see if anyone has any good ideas there.

I fully agree here. In the past, Enigmail was delivered in 2 parts,
Enigmail and Enigmime, where the latter was ipc + something more. I
decided to unify this because it was quite painful for users to install
them separately.

However, since Firefox 2 there is something called multi-item package
[1], i.e. an XPI that contains several other XPI's. So I think the
correct approach would be to create IPC -- from wherever and however
doesn't matter -- and ship addons that need IPC as multi-item
extensions. This way, we can at least ensure that IPC is a separate
reusable component.

I think we should start a separate discussion between the developers of
FireGPG, FireFTP and the two of us to get this fixed properly. For sure,
the solution to incorporate IPC in each development tree independently
is unsatisfactory and will lead to issues. If it would help, I could
also establish a separate project for IPC, so that it's not seen as
"embedded" in Enigmail.

[...]

- -Patrick

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Multiple_Item_Packaging
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwUjOXcOpHodsOiwAQigUwf/bv+UkFVntczzpSdcbK/bufu/oSGAPni3
0vfMeVms7yJHOpaHpG+pmA3Si8PBSbYkHaW6prZQImZPFT6JMSOzg4Cxml+LGgyJ
5ULeppUxvtAdeZ0i5wVa1ud6vK4AEfJ4laVh1LtiBcK3y3IBcJinWWH0ag74fvL8
0DYqA+dsCtxDOCSJbsfIG9KbhQY/zRf+2gQ/Nx4UG4a8tcLVIlu00stGFZ6Xtezm
U0kQaKFm8H5UG1iUeL22ZyOz2fVvjSSs53SYGx3tlr4NxFf5hFSoxFiY3oWqP3A+
Fmz7a0Z8fIPwZunhwI5exboDR090fCSlo4OLlvPvFIyS5I5BEoaDzQ==
=3HlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Thu Nov 19 10:43:57 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:43:57 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] separate distribution of the IPC xpcom component
In-Reply-To: <4B05233B.2070109@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4B02F53A.5070800@fifthhorseman.net>	<4B03AF11.10909@mozilla-enigmail.org>	<4B0450CE.3070305@fifthhorseman.net>
	<4B05233B.2070109@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B0591ED.4090007@fifthhorseman.net>

On 11/19/2009 05:51 AM, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> On 18.11.2009 20:53, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> So i'm not satisfied with the copying of source between projects (see
>> for example debian's rationales for opposing embedded code [0]), but i'm
>> not sure i see a clear way out of the mess either, given the various
>> dependency issues.  i'll take it up with the debian mozilla extensions
>> packaging team to see if anyone has any good ideas there.
> 
> I fully agree here. In the past, Enigmail was delivered in 2 parts,
> Enigmail and Enigmime, where the latter was ipc + something more. I
> decided to unify this because it was quite painful for users to install
> them separately.

i understand your concern :(  without a good dependency resolution
mechanism, inter-extension compatibility is a pretty hairy problem for
users to sort out on their own.

> However, since Firefox 2 there is something called multi-item package
> [1], i.e. an XPI that contains several other XPI's. So I think the
> correct approach would be to create IPC -- from wherever and however
> doesn't matter -- and ship addons that need IPC as multi-item
> extensions. This way, we can at least ensure that IPC is a separate
> reusable component.
>
> [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Multiple_Item_Packaging

Nice, thanks for pointing this out.  It does seem like it's a reasonable
solution, though i'm a bit concerned by API changes in IPC and this
statement (from your link):

    There is currently no facility to prevent or warn the user when
    installing a previous version of an extension.

If the different users of IPC rely on incompatible versions, seems like
this could be problematic.  Mime ?uvalo just pointed me to
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507739 which looks pretty
nasty at the moment.

> I think we should start a separate discussion between the developers of
> FireGPG, FireFTP and the two of us to get this fixed properly. For sure,
> the solution to incorporate IPC in each development tree independently
> is unsatisfactory and will lead to issues. If it would help, I could
> also establish a separate project for IPC, so that it's not seen as
> "embedded" in Enigmail.

Yes, i think that's a good idea.  should we start a separate mailing
list and ask Maximilien and Mime (both Cc'ed here in case they don't
read this list) to join it, so that the discussion can be
publicly-archived (and thus followed by any other interested parties
either now or in the future)?

Or would you be ok with us having that discussion here on
enigmail at mozdev.org?

Thanks for working on this, Patrick.  I really wish IPC was just
included by upstream already :(  Maybe if we can show a more unified
front, we can make a more convincing argument for closing that bug.

Regards,

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091119/c1c7c76e/attachment.bin>

From mnenhy at tprac.de  Thu Nov 19 14:30:45 2009
From: mnenhy at tprac.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karsten_D=FCsterloh?=)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:30:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <he4gun$86r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Patrick Brunschwig aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
> (sorry, that's mainly the fault of SeaMonkey developers who couldn't
> wait for Thunderbird APIs to be frozen before releasing)

Sorry, but that's a bit unfair.

There are no frozen TB APIs. (Even in mailnews backend, frozen APIs are
rare, if any exist at all!) TB APIs change whenever they feel they need
to do that. Keeping TB compatibility is a very arduous task usually, it
feels like shooting at a moving, invisible, teleporting target.

When we decided to finally release SM2 this October after more than 4
years of development, there was no definite, trustworthy release date
for TB3 (and there still isn't!), let alone information about possibly
changing APIs...

The situation now is a bit unfortunate, but we'll try to get 2.0.1 out
asap - but there are a couple of bugs which need to fix before.


Karsten
-- 
Feel free to correct my English. :)

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Fri Nov 20 00:06:48 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:06:48 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <he4gun$86r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<he4gun$86r$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B064E18.1090702@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 19.11.2009 23:30, Karsten D?sterloh wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
>> (sorry, that's mainly the fault of SeaMonkey developers who couldn't
>> wait for Thunderbird APIs to be frozen before releasing)
> 
> Sorry, but that's a bit unfair.

Yes, I know, and please don't take this personally at all :-(
But it's a fact that if SeaMonkey releases before the 1st RC of
Thunderbird is out then that's quite a potential result, also when
looking back at previous releases. For this very reason I would never
release an Enigmail version before the 1st Thunderbird RC is out, I have
seen this happening too often. Thus I think the SeaMonkey team knew
about the risks ...

> There are no frozen TB APIs. (Even in mailnews backend, frozen APIs are
> rare, if any exist at all!) TB APIs change whenever they feel they need
> to do that. Keeping TB compatibility is a very arduous task usually, it
> feels like shooting at a moving, invisible, teleporting target.

Sure, I'm fully aware of this. But once a new version of Thunderbird is
out, so far their APIs were left unchanged for that branch, also in
order not to cause troubles for addons.

> When we decided to finally release SM2 this October after more than 4
> years of development, there was no definite, trustworthy release date
> for TB3 (and there still isn't!), let alone information about possibly
> changing APIs...

Right, and from this perspective it was a good decision to release
SeaMonkey.

> The situation now is a bit unfortunate, but we'll try to get 2.0.1 out

True, but in a few weeks everyone will have forgotten about it ;-)

> asap - but there are a couple of bugs which need to fix before.

Just wait at least until Thunderbird RC1 is out; this way we have at
least a high likelihood for "frozen" APIs.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwZOF3cOpHodsOiwAQiDlQgAl7/w1MZcRcBXV7uA4MI1o8Kt4ayMF2AU
UmgfT1pc9GR0rSUTXzQ57sXcmW+1wiE1+c3BB1t0cfSvuOaC6Ehcjsv2NBevWSUl
s2iFRmHM5IsixwP+QX0WgN+FtGa27qbRGLDRI62qDB2gOw9xEUwwxCgmUSEMwuaO
TUO/v1Etm0jPN5T+ZqHA5XCsV9jEEH8zFbP5emZldM8D0ShvEg+g6MTO8tY6dxBq
uDQfxxCU1YfxrqG5RD/9bMvm9TXia9KbK5IGvjuoyb0GYfVyTThC9r3w1AGhz23J
ysu8p/6sWrZo8ajsB95+9LRKdxHq3oOwtSViEKfZKHJ7JsmS8poAaQ==
=ySqx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From moznews...hb at calen.de  Sat Nov 21 01:28:29 2009
From: moznews...hb at calen.de (moznews...hb at calen.de)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:28:29 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Location, Naming or Updating of Nightlies mismatched!
Message-ID: <he8fce.2v4.1@xcalen.de>

Hi,

Enigmail Nightlies are offered from the developers here
http://mozilla-enigmail.org/download/nightly/. A status page is available
too http://mozilla-enigmail.org/download/nightly/nightly-status.html

Formerly enigmail-trunk-tb-win32-trunk.xpi from that directory was used to
install Enigmail 1.0pre on Seamonkey 2.0.1pre. Since two days this file is
not updated any more.

The status page announces another file enigmail-trunk-win32-comm191.xpi
as version 1.0pre fitting for my Seamonkey. But it installs as 0.96a from
20090626-0547.

New bugfixes go to enigmail-trunk-win32-trunk.xpi only.

Hb


From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Sat Nov 21 04:58:41 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:58:41 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightly Build
Message-ID: <4B07E401.7030001@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Running Tb 3.0.1pre I installed the Nightly Build from the 20th.

 Running Enigmail version 1.0 (20091120-1641)

Warning: Enigmime module not available

ERROR: Failed to access Enigmime service!

Reverting back to the one from the 18th causes everything to 'work'
again.  :-\

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Saturday 21 Nov 2009, 07:58  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLB+PxAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPRSQH/inRckysgW+PqXWO64p/wVYa
EUBq1j3vTZWSR0pEwhHwwGa3dQjm1ewPTQIDwfjl6PwaC8kKTn4CXUdJspIyBEfl
uOIzB/2yrKnRY5K6Rh0BU1m+2clnsqExWU+EbEguPay8PdwyRnUca3O2zXrivp1O
+n/OnEDYrD6arG3h1p0Edc7F5j/LF22/SDOjSJXMizn4yCwpuofKo/jtZCg5f8QN
9vxegjezbUmQ7yo9dqpJzPXy5iEKhfQwaAos19SL2+AZW+jKc9povkdSO5UvKCat
MDn1KNhmwmdGXo5PC8weGQ7mFSiz0tctNw5QhQoUHB4eXB/+Odhubx88cvaZr50=
=exdG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From m534c.subscribe at gmail.com  Sun Nov 22 02:53:19 2009
From: m534c.subscribe at gmail.com (Jonas Islander)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:53:19 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
Message-ID: <4B09181F.5050101@gmail.com>

Olav Seyfarth skrev:
> 60 pages?! People should still *want* to read it ...
>   
It depends on if you're writing a user manual or a reference manual. A 
reference manual is for looking up information - it can be hundreds of 
pages and contain every little technical detail, as long as it's easy to 
find what you're looking for. A user manual is for teaching the user 
things lika basic tasks, and should usually be short and easy to read.

Sometimes bad manuals are a result of not knowing which type to write. A 
manual that tries to be both, may become too hard to read for the 
average user, and too hard to find relevant information in for the power 
user.

Sometimes it's appropriate to write one manual of each type.

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 03:36:25 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:36:25 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09181F.5050101@gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
	<4B09181F.5050101@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B092239.9060901@sixdemonbag.org>

Jonas Islander wrote:
> It depends on if you're writing a user manual or a reference manual.

This distinction is pretty arbitrary.  For instance, the PGP
"Introduction to Cryptography" PDF is a couple of hundred pages.  It's
absolutely enormous.  However, it has a quick start section that's meant
to get users up and running quickly.

Enigmail already has a Quick Start Guide.  It's been pretty well
received by users.  Now it's time for a more comprehensive manual, and
I'm very pleased that Daniel has stepped up to the plate and written a
draft of one.

It's a draft, which means it's incomplete.  But it's a major step
forward and I'm very grateful that it exists.  :)



From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Sun Nov 22 08:28:13 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:28:13 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Location, Naming or Updating of Nightlies mismatched!
In-Reply-To: <he8fce.2v4.1@xcalen.de>
References: <he8fce.2v4.1@xcalen.de>
Message-ID: <4B09669D.7040701@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21.11.2009 10:28, "moznews...hb"@calen.de wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Enigmail Nightlies are offered from the developers here
> http://mozilla-enigmail.org/download/nightly/. A status page is available
> too http://mozilla-enigmail.org/download/nightly/nightly-status.html
> 
> Formerly enigmail-trunk-tb-win32-trunk.xpi from that directory was used to
> install Enigmail 1.0pre on Seamonkey 2.0.1pre. Since two days this file is
> not updated any more.
> 
> The status page announces another file enigmail-trunk-win32-comm191.xpi
> as version 1.0pre fitting for my Seamonkey. But it installs as 0.96a from
> 20090626-0547.
> 
> New bugfixes go to enigmail-trunk-win32-trunk.xpi only.

Right, I'm working on building "trunk" and "stable", and so far it
didn't work. That's why the links are broken and/or point to the wrong
files.

I'd suggest you try again when the build date is again "today".

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwlmnHcOpHodsOiwAQhLZAf/Y/5uHjmTaa3xX9NKZ/ciAQ2oAkYGgIuZ
acjYObsfnvidhvunchK9y1kVKQFzVwFJCpIWuDzn6U/dJ/J+RgzvB8FsMa8zZG9+
a3sa/5TAcocCT+unBoKzOi08kcVP40NkXEKYYiL8XT6e9P/Kxu0uwkDufVIRdSub
3p8p8aXMkrVdA7H9Wky8CDHyIxORY92Oi/k5FCQSFTtiAaB2t0smeH+ZHNSKS2QX
e/eHAZ/WcsihQ5v2tRLyHyZ1vgpzPl/FFtEpkGvGozlafkJ1njRQ0eTkPGLhg96v
vJEnDPsHggAl9dMNsrsB/PopFGSWdZJxmfDqxgiVOPVvEJhDl9OPsA==
=Q5gE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From m534c.subscribe at gmail.com  Sun Nov 22 06:55:38 2009
From: m534c.subscribe at gmail.com (Jonas Islander)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:55:38 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com> <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>

Robert J. Hansen skrev:
> So long as you are using a very strong passphrase which no one but you
> knows, you could mail your private keyring to the NSA and still feel
> confident in the privacy of your emails.
>   
 From a purely cryptographical viewpoint. But someone may peek over your 
shoulder as you type your password, or install a hardware keylogger, and 
then you'll be happy you kept your keyfile secret.



From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 12:30:56 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:30:56 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com> <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>
	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>

Jonas Islander wrote:
> From a purely cryptographical viewpoint. But someone may peek over your
> shoulder as you type your password, or install a hardware keylogger, and
> then you'll be happy you kept your keyfile secret.

If they have physical access to your machine, then it's all over and
there is literally *nothing* which can save you.

If they peek over your shoulder while you're typing your password, then
great, they have your passphrase -- but they don't have your private
key, so it doesn't matter.  Also, why are you entering in your
passphrase without checking over your shoulder first?


From ayush.cena at gmail.com  Sun Nov 22 13:11:40 2009
From: ayush.cena at gmail.com (ayush sharma)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:11:40 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com> <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org> 
	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com> <4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>

Hola!

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>wrote:

> Jonas Islander wrote:
> > From a purely cryptographical viewpoint. But someone may peek over your
> > shoulder as you type your password, or install a hardware keylogger, and
> > then you'll be happy you kept your keyfile secret.
>
> If they have physical access to your machine, then it's all over and
> there is literally *nothing* which can save you.
>
>
I am guessing what Jonas means is that if the attacker has installed a
keylogger as described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_%28computing%29#Keystroke_hacking
then the keylogger stores the details of your keystrokes. The attacker comes
later, and processes the key strokes made by you, and finds your passphrase
(may require a bit of preprocessing too).
If he has no access to your private key, it still doesn't mean any undue
advantage to him, as he only has access to your passphrase. He doesn't need
to 'break into' your system. He just needs to install that keylogger, and
provided he knows as and when you have signed entered your keyphrase, simply
removes the hardware device later (at the end of the day/early morning next
day..maybe?..malicious sweeper!)

Though you are right that if he has physical access to your system, he also
has access to any passwords that you are using to login to your machine. So
well he can then use that information to access your private key.

Physical access is a bad idea!


> If they peek over your shoulder while you're typing your password, then
> great, they have your passphrase -- but they don't have your private
> key, so it doesn't matter.


Unless the guy is stupid enough to have the same passphrase as the login
passphrae/passphrase used to encrypt the drive containing the private key ;)


Also, why are you entering in your
> passphrase without checking over your shoulder first?
>
>
 We had a team leader who had problems typing in 'stars'. Preferred entering
it in clear :D

Regards,
-Ayush
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/a7680c14/attachment.html>

From xfox at mac.com  Sun Nov 22 13:14:13 2009
From: xfox at mac.com (Andrea -XFox- Govoni)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:14:13 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hec9j6$1715$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 15/11/09 18:48, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> 
> On 15.11.2009 13:51, "Dr. Wolfgang R?ckelein" wrote:
>> 
>> the latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre; 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible"
>> message with SeaMonkey 2.0 with 0.97a installed.
>
> That's correct. There was an API change that makes nightly Enigmail
> builds incompatible with SeaMonkey 2.0.

If this is the case, I think you should update the "Enigmail Nightly
Builds" download page [1] to reflect the change.
Specifically, IMHO in the author's nightly builds section the string

"Thunderbird 3.0.x / SeaMonkey 2.0.x"

should be changed to

"Thunderbird 3.0.x / SeaMonkey 2.0.1+"

to make things clearer.
Analogously, in the contributed nightly builds section the string

"Thunderbird Trunk (3.0*) / Seamonkey Trunk (2.0*)"

should be changed to

"Thunderbird Trunk (3.0*) / SeaMonkey Trunk (2.0.1+)".

Note that in the same page sometimes SeaMonkey is not typed with the
correct capitalization, maybe while you are at it you could fix this too.
Best regards,


[1] <http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/nightly.php>

- -- 
Andrea "XFox" Govoni

AIM/iChat/ICQ: xfox at mac.com
Yahoo! ID: xfox82
Skype Name: draykan

PGP
KeyID: 0x212E69C1
Fingerprint: FBE1 CA7D 34BE 4A53 9639  5C36 B7A0 605F 212E 69C1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAksJqaQACgkQt6BgXyEuacFbSQCgqo1FTjiadwdFnbGVLheVD7GM
6uwAniAnnMnAI0yEXZOxeFC3kblCJQua
=Of6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 13:54:59 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <575699.34278.qm@web36308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Sometimes, it cannot be avoided. Iknoe it is difficult to understand that, and then there are the cameras that you cannot see that are installed over your key board.? We are all pondering these issues; and serious ones they are.


?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> wrote:


From: Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 3:30 PM


Jonas Islander wrote:
> From a purely cryptographical viewpoint. But someone may peek over your
> shoulder as you type your password, or install a hardware keylogger, and
> then you'll be happy you kept your keyfile secret.

If they have physical access to your machine, then it's all over and
there is literally *nothing* which can save you.

If they peek over your shoulder while you're typing your password, then
great, they have your passphrase -- but they don't have your private
key, so it doesn't matter.? Also, why are you entering in your
passphrase without checking over your shoulder first?

_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/5c07304f/attachment.html>

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 14:17:39 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:17:39 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com> <4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>
	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com> <4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>
	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>

ayush sharma wrote:
> I am guessing what Jonas means is that if the attacker has installed a
> keylogger as described here

Installing a keylogger requires either or both of physical access to the
machine, or Administrator-level remote access.

Both cases are instant game-overs for everything related to GnuPG.
There is literally no way to defend GnuPG against either threat.

> If he has no access to your private key

If he can plant a keylogger (hardware or software), then he can get your
private key.

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 14:25:07 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:07 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <575699.34278.qm@web36308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <575699.34278.qm@web36308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B09BA43.1020506@sixdemonbag.org>

FederalHill wrote:
> Sometimes, it cannot be avoided. Iknoe it is difficult to understand
> that, and then there are the cameras that you cannot see that are
> installed over your key board.  We are all pondering these issues; and
> serious ones they are.

There is a long list of game-over conditions which neither GnuPG nor
Enigmail can defend against.  Talk about how to keep your traffic secure
even in the face of these game-over conditions is, /a priori/, not
serious.

Stop worrying about how to make GnuPG secure even if there's a camera
watching you from above your desk, and start worrying about how to
remove the camera from above your desk.  The camera is a game-over
condition.  Removing the camera returns you to a state of play.



From alaric at metrocast.net  Sun Nov 22 14:34:36 2009
From: alaric at metrocast.net (Phil Stracchino)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:34:36 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>
	<4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>
	<4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> ayush sharma wrote:
>> I am guessing what Jonas means is that if the attacker has installed a
>> keylogger as described here
> 
> Installing a keylogger requires either or both of physical access to the
> machine, or Administrator-level remote access.
> 
> Both cases are instant game-overs for everything related to GnuPG.
> There is literally no way to defend GnuPG against either threat.

Short of booting the machine from a known-secure OS source that you have
and keep physical control of (a USB key, say, or better still, a CD or
other known-uncompromised read-only media) every time you use it.

Then, of course, that pushes the question to "How do you KNOW it's not
compromised?"  And the answer is, unless you inspected every piece of
source code compiled to create it, including the code for the tools the
CD was burned with and the entire OS load of the machine it was burned
on, you can't be completely sure.  And even then, well ...  there exists
an interesting proof-of-concept demonstration of how to invisibly
compromise gcc in such a way that a compromised gcc will compile another
compromised gcc from clean uncompromised source code.  So you also need
to disassemble all the machine code of every binary on the system and
compare it to the source code.  And then you need to start worrying
about whether the tools you're examining the binaries with have been
compromised...


It is *POSSIBLE*.  But it's a monumental task and far beyond the ability
of the vast majority of users (and probably beyond the ability of any
single user who has anything else to do for the next ten years, period).


- --
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAksJvHwACgkQ0DfOju+hMklDEQCfdTc2vyCQKxNfK+EBYrvE74/y
oKwAnR8Uatcg9065Wv/2m47joqio0E2b
=cYAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 14:55:57 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:55:57 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>	<4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>	<4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>
	<4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>
Message-ID: <4B09C17D.2030202@sixdemonbag.org>

Phil Stracchino wrote:
> there exists an interesting proof-of-concept demonstration of how to
> invisibly compromise gcc in such a way that a compromised gcc will
> compile another compromised gcc from clean uncompromised source code.

If this is the Ken Thompson "Reflections on Trusting Trust" paper, David
A. Wheeler has a really fascinating thesis on how the Thompson attack
can be detected.  It's worth reading.

http://www.dwheeler.com/trusting-trust/

> It is *POSSIBLE*.  But it's a monumental task and far beyond the
> ability of the vast majority of users (and probably beyond the
> ability of any single user who has anything else to do for the next
> ten years, period).

The CIA, NSA and Department of Defense are currently spending literally
dozens of *billions* of dollars on this problem.  This falls under
"supply-chain assurance," which is a huge part of the intelligence and
defense communities' budgets.  The fraction which is being devoted to,
"how can we prove our computers are our own?" is nothing short of
spectacularly huge.

When the difficulties involved are so great that the best minds of the
CIA, NSA and Defense Department are throwing themselves at it and
failing, I think it's reasonable to give a blanket, "there is no known
way for an individual user to counter these threats."

Ergo, I'll say it:

There is no known way for an individual user to counter these threats.


From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 16:12:36 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>
Message-ID: <935995.18136.qm@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Perhaps using a known good image of a hard drive everytime one boots up would solve the problem of a software key logger.


?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net> wrote:


From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 5:34 PM


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> ayush sharma wrote:
>> I am guessing what Jonas means is that if the attacker has installed a
>> keylogger as described here
> 
> Installing a keylogger requires either or both of physical access to the
> machine, or Administrator-level remote access.
> 
> Both cases are instant game-overs for everything related to GnuPG.
> There is literally no way to defend GnuPG against either threat.

Short of booting the machine from a known-secure OS source that you have
and keep physical control of (a USB key, say, or better still, a CD or
other known-uncompromised read-only media) every time you use it.

Then, of course, that pushes the question to "How do you KNOW it's not
compromised?"? And the answer is, unless you inspected every piece of
source code compiled to create it, including the code for the tools the
CD was burned with and the entire OS load of the machine it was burned
on, you can't be completely sure.? And even then, well ...? there exists
an interesting proof-of-concept demonstration of how to invisibly
compromise gcc in such a way that a compromised gcc will compile another
compromised gcc from clean uncompromised source code.? So you also need
to disassemble all the machine code of every binary on the system and
compare it to the source code.? And then you need to start worrying
about whether the tools you're examining the binaries with have been
compromised...


It is *POSSIBLE*.? But it's a monumental task and far beyond the ability
of the vast majority of users (and probably beyond the ability of any
single user who has anything else to do for the next ten years, period).


- --
? Phil Stracchino, CDK#2? ???DoD#299792458? ???ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
? alaric at caerllewys.net???alaric at metrocast.net???phil at co.ordinate.org
? ? ? ???Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAksJvHwACgkQ0DfOju+hMklDEQCfdTc2vyCQKxNfK+EBYrvE74/y
oKwAnR8Uatcg9065Wv/2m47joqio0E2b
=cYAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/1fd29d96/attachment-0001.html>

From alaric at metrocast.net  Sun Nov 22 16:14:28 2009
From: alaric at metrocast.net (Phil Stracchino)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:14:28 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09C17D.2030202@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>	<4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>	<4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>
	<4B09C17D.2030202@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <4B09D3E4.1030005@metrocast.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> It is *POSSIBLE*.  But it's a monumental task and far beyond the
>> ability of the vast majority of users (and probably beyond the
>> ability of any single user who has anything else to do for the next
>> ten years, period).
> 
> The CIA, NSA and Department of Defense are currently spending literally
> dozens of *billions* of dollars on this problem.  This falls under
> "supply-chain assurance," which is a huge part of the intelligence and
> defense communities' budgets.  The fraction which is being devoted to,
> "how can we prove our computers are our own?" is nothing short of
> spectacularly huge.
> 
> When the difficulties involved are so great that the best minds of the
> CIA, NSA and Defense Department are throwing themselves at it and
> failing, I think it's reasonable to give a blanket, "there is no known
> way for an individual user to counter these threats."

That was sort of my point: not only is there no known way for an
individual to have this level of assurance, it's almost certainly beyond
most *groups* of users.


- --
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAksJ0+QACgkQ0DfOju+hMkmExgCdHYYnv3eGW14g74n74zfaNypa
Z0gAn3hVbs/cVwHb4PmcaUG6LcUBvSkQ
=o7wM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 16:34:17 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:34:17 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <935995.18136.qm@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <935995.18136.qm@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B09D889.3000501@sixdemonbag.org>

FederalHill wrote:
> Perhaps using a known good image of a hard drive everytime one boots up
> would solve the problem of a software key logger.

Not at all.  How do you know your known-good image is a correct one?

Let's say you've got a USB thumbdrive on your keyring that has your
entire environment.  I get access to your keyring for ten minutes, which
is a pretty easy task.  I boot your environment, Trojan it, and bang, done.

All you're doing is punting the question.  "How do I ensure I control my
operating system?  Okay, I'll use a bootable USB device I'll carry with
me."  This doesn't answer the problem: it still leaves you with, "how do
I ensure I control my operating system?"

From rjh at sixdemonbag.org  Sun Nov 22 16:39:08 2009
From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:39:08 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09D3E4.1030005@metrocast.net>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>	<4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>	<4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>	<4B09C17D.2030202@sixdemonbag.org>
	<4B09D3E4.1030005@metrocast.net>
Message-ID: <4B09D9AC.7090206@sixdemonbag.org>

Phil Stracchino wrote:
> That was sort of my point: not only is there no known way for an 
> individual to have this level of assurance, it's almost certainly
> beyond most *groups* of users.

I'm sorry -- I meant to vigorously *agree* with you, not present myself
as a contrary view.  I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I just thought
you weren't saying it emphatically enough.  :)


From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 17:30:33 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:30:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09D889.3000501@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <378148.86993.qm@web36302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


We destroyed all of our computers rather then address the issue.

?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> wrote:


From: Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 7:34 PM


FederalHill wrote:
> Perhaps using a known good image of a hard drive everytime one boots up
> would solve the problem of a software key logger.

Not at all.? How do you know your known-good image is a correct one?

Let's say you've got a USB thumbdrive on your keyring that has your
entire environment.? I get access to your keyring for ten minutes, which
is a pretty easy task.? I boot your environment, Trojan it, and bang, done.

All you're doing is punting the question.? "How do I ensure I control my
operating system?? Okay, I'll use a bootable USB device I'll carry with
me."? This doesn't answer the problem: it still leaves you with, "how do
I ensure I control my operating system?"
_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/5b417a5e/attachment.html>

From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 17:47:31 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Fw: Re:  Adding documentation
Message-ID: <225046.38950.qm@web36306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>




?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, FederalHill <federalhillrent at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: FederalHill <federalhillrent at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 8:30 PM







We destroyed all of our computers rather then address the issue.

?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> wrote:


From: Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 7:34 PM


FederalHill wrote:
> Perhaps using a known good image of a hard drive everytime one boots up
> would solve the problem of a software key logger.

Not at all.? How do you know your known-good image is a correct one?

Let's say you've got a USB thumbdrive on your keyring that has your
entire environment.? I get access to your keyring for ten minutes, which
is a pretty easy task.? I boot your environment, Trojan it, and bang, done.

All you're doing is punting the question.? "How do I ensure I control my
operating system?? Okay, I'll use a bootable USB device I'll carry with
me."? This doesn't answer the problem: it still leaves you with, "how do
I ensure I control my operating system?"
_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/09537b67/attachment.html>

From alaric at metrocast.net  Sun Nov 22 18:26:42 2009
From: alaric at metrocast.net (Phil Stracchino)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:26:42 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09D9AC.7090206@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<4AF82EBB.90408@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B0950EA.8060400@gmail.com>	<4B099F80.1050502@sixdemonbag.org>	<ba2ebc620911221311y432cf675n1d51d36ac2c5cc16@mail.gmail.com>	<4B09B883.3080307@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B09BC7C.1020305@metrocast.net>	<4B09C17D.2030202@sixdemonbag.org>	<4B09D3E4.1030005@metrocast.net>
	<4B09D9AC.7090206@sixdemonbag.org>
Message-ID: <4B09F2E2.2080205@metrocast.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> That was sort of my point: not only is there no known way for an 
>> individual to have this level of assurance, it's almost certainly
>> beyond most *groups* of users.
> 
> I'm sorry -- I meant to vigorously *agree* with you, not present myself
> as a contrary view.  I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I just thought
> you weren't saying it emphatically enough.  :)

We appear indeed to be in violent agreement.   :)


- --
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEUEAREIAAYFAksJ8uIACgkQ0DfOju+hMkkDsgCeOMCVpZuBATtSm53bBSmUAo6A
vGgAmMKIlcT6YArIdFYCzyhAWTsyopk=
=POmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From alaric at metrocast.net  Sun Nov 22 18:27:42 2009
From: alaric at metrocast.net (Phil Stracchino)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:27:42 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <378148.86993.qm@web36302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <378148.86993.qm@web36302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4B09F31E.4040602@metrocast.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

FederalHill wrote:
> 
> We destroyed all of our computers rather then address the issue.

That seems drastic, for a measure that doesn't really address the problem...


- --
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAksJ8x4ACgkQ0DfOju+hMkkugQCgwtprQIgg3pudqIyhs61bVhy4
m3QAoLkHXZ7/Sa2k5v/JjCgFxzLtwtv+
=d63t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 18:29:09 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09F2E2.2080205@metrocast.net>
Message-ID: <128901.36471.qm@web36307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I need a beer to forget the whole thing, I study computer security at The University of Baltimore now. Good night all.?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net> wrote:


From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 9:26 PM


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Phil Stracchino wrote:
>> That was sort of my point: not only is there no known way for an 
>> individual to have this level of assurance, it's almost certainly
>> beyond most *groups* of users.
> 
> I'm sorry -- I meant to vigorously *agree* with you, not present myself
> as a contrary view.? I agree with you wholeheartedly.? I just thought
> you weren't saying it emphatically enough.? :)

We appear indeed to be in violent agreement.???:)


- --
? Phil Stracchino, CDK#2? ???DoD#299792458? ???ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
? alaric at caerllewys.net???alaric at metrocast.net???phil at co.ordinate.org
? ? ? ???Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEUEAREIAAYFAksJ8uIACgkQ0DfOju+hMkkDsgCeOMCVpZuBATtSm53bBSmUAo6A
vGgAmMKIlcT6YArIdFYCzyhAWTsyopk=
=POmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/d28012c3/attachment-0001.html>

From federalhillrent at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 22 18:29:47 2009
From: federalhillrent at yahoo.com (FederalHill)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:29:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B09F31E.4040602@metrocast.net>
Message-ID: <23831.91281.qm@web36304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Everyone eles went to jail


?

--- On Sun, 11/22/09, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net> wrote:


From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
To: "Enigmail user discussion list" <enigmail at mozdev.org>
Date: Sunday, November 22, 2009, 9:27 PM


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

FederalHill wrote:
> 
> We destroyed all of our computers rather then address the issue.

That seems drastic, for a measure that doesn't really address the problem...


- --
? Phil Stracchino, CDK#2? ???DoD#299792458? ???ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
? alaric at caerllewys.net???alaric at metrocast.net???phil at co.ordinate.org
? ? ? ???Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???It's not the years, it's the mileage.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREIAAYFAksJ8x4ACgkQ0DfOju+hMkkugQCgwtprQIgg3pudqIyhs61bVhy4
m3QAoLkHXZ7/Sa2k5v/JjCgFxzLtwtv+
=d63t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail at mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091122/8fd8fd18/attachment.html>

From chaz at chaz6.com  Sun Nov 22 21:15:07 2009
From: chaz at chaz6.com (Chris Hills)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:15:07 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
Message-ID: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi

I was able to use enigmail-trunk-linux-trunk.xpi with 3.0.1pre
(latest-comm-1.9.1) but not 3.1a1pre (latest-comm-central-trunk). It is
probably a bit premature, but is there any plan to support that build?

Regards,

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=FwEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 23 00:37:04 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:37:04 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre;
 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible" message with SeaMonkey 2.0
In-Reply-To: <hec9j6$1715$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hdotgq$9k1$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.460.1258307352.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hec9j6$1715$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0A49B0.20303@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 22.11.2009 22:14, Andrea -XFox- Govoni wrote:
> On 15/11/09 18:48, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> 
>> On 15.11.2009 13:51, "Dr. Wolfgang R?ckelein" wrote:
>>>
>>> the latest enigmail nightly (1.0pre; 09-11-15) triggers "incompatible"
>>> message with SeaMonkey 2.0 with 0.97a installed.
> 
>> That's correct. There was an API change that makes nightly Enigmail
>> builds incompatible with SeaMonkey 2.0.
> 
> If this is the case, I think you should update the "Enigmail Nightly
> Builds" download page [1] to reflect the change.
> Specifically, IMHO in the author's nightly builds section the string
> 
> "Thunderbird 3.0.x / SeaMonkey 2.0.x"
> 
> should be changed to
> 
> "Thunderbird 3.0.x / SeaMonkey 2.0.1+"
> 
> to make things clearer.

right, I fixed my part.

By the way, the 1st nightly builds for TB trunk are now out, even though
AFAIK the trunk isn't fully operational yet.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwpJrncOpHodsOiwAQgoGAf+LpPR00b2zsMXVJvD8KUmNRKhJIvfkzgH
+IO+GTsYZcKjTomJy0HhC5sZyJa8kXoGvOsWBXSY/Y7U4GLFZ91m1owE+5XVhVc3
8mPCKIaB5sHmDG/umAKlKOZ85/cvc0b+Bph7wxGayPVQioY3XmlbYqTgOb2f2qri
DBY+b1tLwTxsd88dyeKEWHAVFK/5Y2D2q74B34ixo4XMQTH9IAxWNf1YUZL3dqmf
a+8E++QwsgFBBodSENjhd+esE2P/iuZ3reeImMLnN4ndd77icsC4wJAd6tAWt6Kb
4LA/fRGpHShuBGwVScZKdE3s65YwDSPl7EGF9TmOTKIzpBclmDh8Og==
=6Nh2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 23 00:37:45 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:37:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
In-Reply-To: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0A49D9.7020300@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23.11.2009 06:15, Chris Hills wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I was able to use enigmail-trunk-linux-trunk.xpi with 3.0.1pre
> (latest-comm-1.9.1) but not 3.1a1pre (latest-comm-central-trunk). It is
> probably a bit premature, but is there any plan to support that build?

Yes, the 1st nightly builds were produced last night. No idea how
functional they are though ...

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwpJ2HcOpHodsOiwAQgQ2gf/ZyyoOJQzRMTyyoZRF4T6pwu3R1XkF2TU
Z/8BKtZDCSPjeHZiBsVlbmSf2FKQUYWl4IoaGNL0VSGRvTTzj0kdg0fyVkCmeOSt
RRcGay8dNanrJGSbj3Ubl/5znx2o94oyNYrrOA996zTyW3Wuz8sAhEYt1kjipSuZ
f2P6vDq0QPQE/qntfolBe2LTXPks8ABqVwPOmcNEH4gbUraO+lyQMgbVUFWPGiFN
r9O6Se1VBtqQslBXj+QdDMI04QEgH21mbX7wbtDhJLbUA4lDWeod/4D+3cjC9+R3
Onz4X2mGkUGipVYHrP5WKepPCHcVf+99dPJShTn3wnHfm2qNFkrj9A==
=0wdt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From moznews...hb at calen.de  Mon Nov 23 02:24:41 2009
From: moznews...hb at calen.de (moznews...hb at calen.de)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:24:41 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
In-Reply-To: <mailman.560.1258965476.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.560.1258965476.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hedrdq.37c.1@xcalen.de>

Patrick Brunschwig schrieb:
> 
> Yes, the 1st nightly builds were produced last night. No idea how
> functional they are though ...

Still something wrong.

http://mozilla-enigmail.org/download/nightly/enigmail-trunk-win32-comm191.xpi installs
as 0.96a (20090626-0547) and fails to setup the Enigmime service. But
internally the file /install.rdf has a Last Changed Timestamp as of today.

From dan at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 23 03:36:29 2009
From: dan at mozilla-enigmail.org (Daniele Raffo)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:36:29 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <mailman.533.1258887213.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>
	<mailman.533.1258887213.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0A73BD.60504@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonas Islander wrote:

> Sometimes bad manuals are a result of not knowing which type to write. A
> manual that tries to be both, may become too hard to read for the
> average user, and too hard to find relevant information in for the power
> user.

The Enigmail Handbook I've prepared contains both the basic information,
suitable for the unexperienced user, and detailed information about
advanced operations and settings, which the unexperienced user may
choose to skip.
Consider also that Enigmail is a plug-in for GnuPG, and most advanced
operations can be accomplished via GPG command line, and as such the
advanced user should refer directly to the GnuPG documentation.

- --
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAksKc70ACgkQW9ZLGa9iatTOcACZAcVp6G2o9P3Z80OYIPbpu/Mv
pQoAnj3kDzCmK1WNXtjK7Lj0gDuQsZQP
=EhBK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Mon Nov 23 04:50:13 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:50:13 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
In-Reply-To: <hedrdq.37c.1@xcalen.de>
References: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.560.1258965476.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hedrdq.37c.1@xcalen.de>
Message-ID: <4B0A8505.3050607@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23.11.2009 11:24, "moznews...hb"@calen.de wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig schrieb:
>>
>> Yes, the 1st nightly builds were produced last night. No idea how
>> functional they are though ...
> 
> Still something wrong.

Sorry, the build process uploaded the wrong file for Windows. Please try
again.


- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwqFBHcOpHodsOiwAQiWWggAtaQGmkBgKuCgRV2yDYVVQtHfM1RHfvxU
sUXmRcmOKVJGjKHFc9k0eJUZ1so4MUrnoTKfiIeW67uXdPolzvwwLR8zD9zKaDdn
rdK7ZOCU0gTrqT6JDrgttVGB80j2xmxRYDVBOv7X6DvpkbjsB6nvidgYXUT+MXl7
HILJxH4RuLTR7SoZdP6lJJDO/r4PZSyqrnsCKL5/h0tUWLBWXshxM9wZa0e7NZFS
2kkjQL/+t0p2jO1ASohi/sng9ALpDdPqOOzerkU3DCODw0v5HQ5LsKChdcz58Qpx
4gYj1R8/nlegDEqRYZOMHbGDHYOaJLrSmaQvaNPw7qE+GJopkHNBjw==
=ALS6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From funktioniert_trotz_SPAM at nurfuerspam.de  Mon Nov 23 06:22:00 2009
From: funktioniert_trotz_SPAM at nurfuerspam.de (Tobias Fischer)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:22:00 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
In-Reply-To: <mailman.564.1258980627.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.560.1258965476.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hedrdq.37c.1@xcalen.de>
	<mailman.564.1258980627.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hee5q9$23ra$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

On 23.11.2009 13:50, Patrick Brunschwig wrote:
> On 23.11.2009 11:24, "moznews...hb"@calen.de wrote:
>> Patrick Brunschwig schrieb:
>>>
>>> Yes, the 1st nightly builds were produced last night. No idea how
>>> functional they are though ...
> 
>> Still something wrong.
> 
> Sorry, the build process uploaded the wrong file for Windows. Please try
> again.

Well done, thx, the new 1.9.1 Build works here again.


Tobias

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Mon Nov 23 13:40:24 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:40:24 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <4B0A73BD.60504@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>	<mailman.533.1258887213.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<4B0A73BD.60504@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B0B0148.7060107@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Daniele Raffo wrote:

> Consider also that Enigmail is a plug-in for GnuPG, and most advanced
> operations can be accomplished via GPG command line, and as such the
> advanced user should refer directly to the GnuPG documentation.

These "advanced operations" may also [and most often are] be configured
within the gpg.conf File.  While I feel all to-date seen 'instructions'
regarding this File are lacking I do think that the Manual should fully
explain that _all_ Enigmail Preference Settings, including any command
added within the 'Additional Parameters' box, will *supersede* any
similar entry in gpg.conf.

Enigmail is a 'glorified' gpg.conf with use of the Preferences under
'expert' mode and as such all 'Preferences' are entered as 'commands'
_first_ .  Experience has shown Me that the term 'Interface' is broadly
interpreted and with Enigmail the preference settings carry more
'weight' than most folks grasp.

Just My 2 cents worth.  Perhaps as effective as spitting into the wind.
 [Jim Croce warned against this practice  :) ]

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Monday 23 Nov 2009, 16:40  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLCwFGAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPmhkH/11Nkvz9QEY/9Ox8aQhVDNwh
Vh0w4Iv0XSe1egamp2Xpu6qb2pIRfCWXFBaEq/JI+sr80SX70PVjRJSizHRAcv5h
qfFxqEccFddgChSaxZgPRfjOpF4t8F4GJL8OPX/fFsdV+wpI73RJ9AFfVt0NG653
/MIgG/DBqCVHaXPuQjPnLADH2H2ZQCZ8lJLhKBKa2Ac2MTUXj5O+im1zygt8yX1y
cPmqEDbHnfQgx7TQvXqlUoJMCzgGEtN8olbeauR/5sooskRFK63x1IPUaQxR55fC
mS1rzyAj66TCDaZ3eqSVr53zozPGihR4gxxJ24cCq/Njx1D9fy1O1y72nrQqEX4=
=LvQQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3796 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091123/bb056145/attachment.bin>

From l.dobrev at gmail.com  Mon Nov 23 15:26:41 2009
From: l.dobrev at gmail.com (Lachezar Dobrev)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:26:41 +0200
Subject: [Enigmail] Using Smart Card with GPG/Enigmail
Message-ID: <90266c3f0911231526j53c25bcama9bf2970394faf13@mail.gmail.com>

  Since there were some sparks around key-loggers and OTS/integrated
cameras, I am wondering whether a Smart Card container for the GPG
keys would negate those concerns? I have had little experience with
PKCS#11 smart cards.

  Has any one had some real experience with cryptographic hardware,
that is anything accessible to the general public.

  My quick lookup on the Internet yielded really few usable
information bits, especially regarding similarities and differences
between PKCS#11 and PKCS#15 (the two standards I've read about
regarding Smart Cards). I was wondering if there are smarter devices,
that do not allow direct access to the private keys, rather allow
in-device signing and encryption (and key pair generation of course).

  Any pointers?

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Mon Nov 23 19:38:38 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:38:38 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
Message-ID: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
fantastic Improvement.  :-D

I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Monday 23 Nov 2009, 22:38  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLC1U8AAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPYAIIAID1JwAyOlMoo0jZXGVPkGBE
DxHCvvz0RYapJodjRMxy44sHZKVOGDYYY7qz/MdmbqG5DXfdrMT40blFYu8s0lbH
cQQSUPxetzUOvPfw/dFpCQ+VJ2tmMmgx78U386/nISF7DqF7/v6+ZRKkUcbe4s/r
5F9VWWXzNG91lpJ2PV6vWan63rBdTOP4r9rhMcMGhE9GKDD0asruUkMt3UZGJkkk
e0SorTZoDb9qvGY9YIpbeI8jaohRLuDpeUcEA8X86GoCWZN67KTt9gM4OHPDmIch
rGZKLN3agPTE1bfQTsk5ArjwgFLzhsMiBy/PYraJ96Qw1XZoZVjRaBD0dQD3+to=
=izrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Tue Nov 24 00:34:12 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:34:12 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
In-Reply-To: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>
References: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <4B0B9A84.2090300@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 24.11.2009 04:38, John W. Moore III wrote:
> Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
> fantastic Improvement.  :-D
> 
> I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
> version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
> accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
> reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
> H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D

The names of the branches are given by Thunderbird development:
Thunderbird 3.0 branched away from trunk several months ago. The
Thunderbird 3 branch is called "comm-1.9.1" (because it's based on Gecko
1.9.1). Given that development of new features for Thunderbird 3  is
stopped and bug fixing is restricted to blockers, the focus is now more
and more switching to trunk. That's why the nightly builds of Enigmail
are called the way they are.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwuagncOpHodsOiwAQgybAf/RLAm66prIEcSUA/LmtJuxnmlQem3TsCG
4pI+4MPQG6n/suYflU8+CLASpOlvJ4C+m3PumEuYDskRbreaQIaQF22eRazZ2gBJ
6UAh4qq9r2j98YJiS5mbXZSFjWUxAzP+WMjI2mTTEH0ixnsbFaz1gcPgwefavhL2
BRtCa7chs1CeSzcQFoGcqq+ByL7FuWEhs85avEcadzuL06CLKHrGasl/veQ1d6Rf
Ec7tNj3Kv21VLVk0AB1n8REsIvBSamrQiMZ+Vs/1mjpThkPUBwmLoQcmajlZZGdP
KZ73pe+FyjIawXbI6tQzAYm869ulJkreHSghn7sUpTqjDQ30N4kb3g==
=P4mH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Tue Nov 24 00:42:48 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:42:48 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Using Smart Card with GPG/Enigmail
In-Reply-To: <90266c3f0911231526j53c25bcama9bf2970394faf13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <90266c3f0911231526j53c25bcama9bf2970394faf13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B0B9C88.7050500@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 24.11.2009 00:26, Lachezar Dobrev wrote:
>   Since there were some sparks around key-loggers and OTS/integrated
> cameras, I am wondering whether a Smart Card container for the GPG
> keys would negate those concerns? I have had little experience with
> PKCS#11 smart cards.
> 
>   Has any one had some real experience with cryptographic hardware,
> that is anything accessible to the general public.
> 
>   My quick lookup on the Internet yielded really few usable
> information bits, especially regarding similarities and differences
> between PKCS#11 and PKCS#15 (the two standards I've read about
> regarding Smart Cards). I was wondering if there are smarter devices,
> that do not allow direct access to the private keys, rather allow
> in-device signing and encryption (and key pair generation of course).

I'd suggest you check out the OpenPGP Smartcard created by Werner Koch
(the author of GnuPG):
http://www.g10code.com/p-card.html

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSwuch3cOpHodsOiwAQjgMAgAih2nHveXOXvR0yrbPOIzSC0hSsBei5ET
MPqR0Cs+98tBnEWWhsF43DQlbQODtZLhi3D0h5qNg4R9o7NkjdTb7HHOi+S9Nykt
GFwaA4oJ3BYedumwb2NPUNZz7TECImgASkTU6L+gcqm8zRPPsGTLvBAEBBVwQfVq
7KXU8Ii48XBKDPgzDZ2Z5Zzp9Lrp3gHYWBKVE9QoXySGLnLtZ22aCNOUC1S6mrIC
+KLHa5q804TK5hj84E3DA3onMaiJ2DOg71JgFxHbpd7L+AqihUoDmWWHipOwHKeJ
YWxdNiC36t6ku52VpM6qCxbs7O8NJpL1sMzRP/C5jRnX/bGNFHA6fg==
=deYm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From dan at mozilla-enigmail.org  Tue Nov 24 03:00:07 2009
From: dan at mozilla-enigmail.org (Daniele Raffo)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:07 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Adding documentation
In-Reply-To: <mailman.566.1259012439.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4AF79A92.10502@gmail.com>	<mailman.405.1257778889.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<hdbgd9$1ps2$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<4AF99012.6090402@seyfarth.de>	<mailman.533.1258887213.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<4B0A73BD.60504@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<mailman.566.1259012439.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0BBCB7.70806@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John W. Moore III wrote:
> These "advanced operations" may also [and most often are] be configured
> within the gpg.conf File.  While I feel all to-date seen 'instructions'
> regarding this File are lacking I do think that the Manual should fully
> explain that _all_ Enigmail Preference Settings, including any command
> added within the 'Additional Parameters' box, will *supersede* any
> similar entry in gpg.conf.

Good point.  I'll add this in the Handbook.  Thanks,

- --
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAksLvLYACgkQW9ZLGa9iatQLNgCfQ//m/GxlIZVe1hI9Oaxu7oul
K+IAoLNdlVS+YtgxW63K94sSe0g1LGD+
=pS1v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net  Tue Nov 24 04:23:26 2009
From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:23:26 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] Hooray!!  Nightly Works!
Message-ID: <4B0BD03E.9040403@bellsouth.net>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Running 3.0.1pre I have successfully installed the "1.9.1" labeled
version for today and find it excellent.  :-D

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Tuesday 24 Nov 2009, 07:23  --500 (Eastern Standard Time)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at:  http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: http://www.gswot.org
Comment: Personal Web Page:  http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJLC9A8AAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPaxsIAKRUj6wzA5xZO/OKTRecUgB/
JruX4ZdlhyEjg4YUV3Qh1VK8X1IRCJkPyapC6CvpVbiFf+aDrEexzMG8TflTc7Cn
JPCfYX/+Xv/PAYepLiYnxylgpycO+AUQ2KxSY4WUiQbNh+MFymOexD3HwDhELBH/
nG4z3hjHnCnP84Gi++afujy3cfvkE0q3Nf9O35JlqEcxECdEt9XSITvMFlKKOQZy
qj90+h1YhpPezLThAuvnL/+cUZPSwNyHdq8FtHlKauD+AZ8DznlFPanVylLyklKG
q8DPRVBxJfzYlbpLlmeb8oISpHTXiWcfWuX29Rv5BtG7wkStM5DPV+jZoWbbiGo=
=TeI8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From mail at felixschulze.de  Tue Nov 24 13:28:27 2009
From: mail at felixschulze.de (Felix Schulze)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:28:27 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Tutorial for GnuPG 2.0.13 on Snow Leopard for Enigmail
Message-ID: <4B0C4FFB.7030403@felixschulze.de>

Hello,

i made a turial (in german) how to compile and use GnuPG 2.0.13 on Mac
OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard). I used an modified version of pinentry-mac
(only cosmetic changes). So it can be used with enigmail and thunderbird
(with an mac-nativ pinentry dialog)

http://www.x2on.de/2009/11/24/tutorial-gnupg-2-0-13-unter-mac-os-x-10-6/

Perhaps it can help some people to use GnuPG 2 with enigmail.

I have tested this with Thunderbird 3 RC1 build 3 and Enigmail 1.0pre
and it works well.

P.S.: Thanks for this great addon.

Greetings

Felix Schulze

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6741 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091124/f1ff2e02/attachment.bin>

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Wed Nov 25 08:08:08 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:08:08 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Fwd: Nightlies for Mac OS X
Message-ID: <4B0D5668.8070006@hammernoch.net>

Hi,

as of today, the enigmail nightlies are available in splitted
versions for comm-1.9.1 (for the upcoming TB3.0 and Seamonkey 2.01) and
trunk (for what will become Thunderbird 3.1 or Seamonkey 2.1).

They can be downloaded via the usual page:

http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download/nightly.php

I have tested the following configurations:

comm-191 in:
TB3.0pre on 10.5.8 PPC and 10.6.2 Intel
SM2.01pre on 10.5.8 PPC and 10.6.2 Intel

trunk in:
TB3.1a1pre on 10.6.2 Intel

As I have no active 10.4 machine around, please give feedback if there
are any problems.

Enjoy!

Ludwig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091125/6abc2339/attachment.bin>

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Wed Nov 25 08:20:58 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:20:58 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Nightlies
In-Reply-To: <4B0A49D9.7020300@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <hed5ot$1b52$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<4B0A49D9.7020300@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B0D596A.7080600@hammernoch.net>

Patrick Brunschwig wrote on 23.11.09 09:37:
> On 23.11.2009 06:15, Chris Hills wrote:
>> Hi
> 
>> I was able to use enigmail-trunk-linux-trunk.xpi with 3.0.1pre
>> (latest-comm-1.9.1) but not 3.1a1pre (latest-comm-central-trunk). It is
>> probably a bit premature, but is there any plan to support that build?
> 
> Yes, the 1st nightly builds were produced last night. No idea how
> functional they are though ...

Enigmail is basically working in todays 3.1a1pre on Mac OS X. However,
there are some annoying drawing errors in the message window when
scrolling - which are not Enigmails fault. I switched back to 3.01pre :-)

Ludwig

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091125/383a2adc/attachment.bin>

From michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm  Thu Nov 26 01:21:06 2009
From: michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm (Michael J Gruber)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:21:06 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
In-Reply-To: <mailman.569.1259051673.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>
	<mailman.569.1259051673.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <helhc4$2n4a$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 24.11.2009 09:34:
> On 24.11.2009 04:38, John W. Moore III wrote:
>> Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
>> fantastic Improvement.  :-D
> 
>> I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
>> version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
>> accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
>> reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
>> H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D
> 
> The names of the branches are given by Thunderbird development:
> Thunderbird 3.0 branched away from trunk several months ago. The
> Thunderbird 3 branch is called "comm-1.9.1" (because it's based on Gecko
> 1.9.1). Given that development of new features for Thunderbird 3  is
> stopped and bug fixing is restricted to blockers, the focus is now more
> and more switching to trunk. That's why the nightly builds of Enigmail
> are called the way they are.

For now Enigmail version 1.0 (20091125-0859) from trunk actually works
with TB3 from comm-1.9.1, i.e. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091125 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.1pre. That
is, when you compile it yourself.

If I understand Patrick correctly this may break when there are
incompatible interface changes on comm-central, though.

Michael

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Thu Nov 26 01:35:27 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:35:27 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
In-Reply-To: <helhc4$2n4a$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>	<mailman.569.1259051673.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<helhc4$2n4a$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0E4BDF.5040706@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26.11.2009 10:21, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 24.11.2009 09:34:
>> On 24.11.2009 04:38, John W. Moore III wrote:
>>> Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
>>> fantastic Improvement.  :-D
>>
>>> I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
>>> version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
>>> accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
>>> reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
>>> H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D
>>
>> The names of the branches are given by Thunderbird development:
>> Thunderbird 3.0 branched away from trunk several months ago. The
>> Thunderbird 3 branch is called "comm-1.9.1" (because it's based on Gecko
>> 1.9.1). Given that development of new features for Thunderbird 3  is
>> stopped and bug fixing is restricted to blockers, the focus is now more
>> and more switching to trunk. That's why the nightly builds of Enigmail
>> are called the way they are.
> 
> For now Enigmail version 1.0 (20091125-0859) from trunk actually works
> with TB3 from comm-1.9.1, i.e. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
> rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091125 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.1pre. That
> is, when you compile it yourself.
> 
> If I understand Patrick correctly this may break when there are
> incompatible interface changes on comm-central, though.

Given that TB 3 RC 1 is out, you can expect that the API for TB 3.0 will
remain unchanged -- at least if the TB developers follow the rules that
they defined ;-). API changes will very likely only occur on Thunderbird
trunk.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSw5L3ncOpHodsOiwAQi2TAf9E0yw4euFrei7TUJ4RtY+op3vGXxDtMBI
TwrBwEEVNGhN6klk7MpQnsl2z49k+TutBTc9kwul6y20YsTXpPNTNm35DY7tw8Q1
8LDNKk1zHdKJZq1X0XNctOQJE9JD46Jk0ZSMO41lwBnLnwcMEGnWH6sKMEN7yiSZ
DeSJNKozAm4PF53LtjIe2YI9NKBOMcfQlxciJIluplX/OuqLS95fJauG/ReSHsvt
ORbvCtWVpHYQjZYPzmD6TuKh3rWLiq0ar3v2fBMiTYPRit8GaD9XtCtcBaWg7f7l
K2VICBnQ0T2JL2Z4o8Ypxji11dB2TmufxThxsFLObG4ja+ZrWV849Q==
=KgyB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm  Thu Nov 26 02:27:51 2009
From: michaeljgruber+mozdevnews at fastmail.fm (Michael J Gruber)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:27:51 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
In-Reply-To: <mailman.582.1259228146.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
References: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>	<mailman.569.1259051673.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<helhc4$2n4a$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
	<mailman.582.1259228146.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <hell99$218$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>

Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 26.11.2009 10:35:
> On 26.11.2009 10:21, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 24.11.2009 09:34:
>>> On 24.11.2009 04:38, John W. Moore III wrote:
>>>> Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
>>>> fantastic Improvement.  :-D
>>>
>>>> I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
>>>> version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
>>>> accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
>>>> reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
>>>> H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D
>>>
>>> The names of the branches are given by Thunderbird development:
>>> Thunderbird 3.0 branched away from trunk several months ago. The
>>> Thunderbird 3 branch is called "comm-1.9.1" (because it's based on Gecko
>>> 1.9.1). Given that development of new features for Thunderbird 3  is
>>> stopped and bug fixing is restricted to blockers, the focus is now more
>>> and more switching to trunk. That's why the nightly builds of Enigmail
>>> are called the way they are.
> 
>> For now Enigmail version 1.0 (20091125-0859) from trunk actually works
>> with TB3 from comm-1.9.1, i.e. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
>> rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091125 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.1pre. That
>> is, when you compile it yourself.
> 
>> If I understand Patrick correctly this may break when there are
>> incompatible interface changes on comm-central, though.
> 
> Given that TB 3 RC 1 is out, you can expect that the API for TB 3.0 will
> remain unchanged -- at least if the TB developers follow the rules that
> they defined ;-). API changes will very likely only occur on Thunderbird
> trunk.

Yes, sure. What I meant was: With Enigmail trunk you are following the
TB API on comm-central, right? So, Enigmail trunk (even self-compiled)
may or may not work with TB comm-1.9.1 (the 3.0.x line). Right now it does.

Michael

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Thu Nov 26 02:53:29 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:53:29 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] 20091123 [1.9.1] Nightly Finally Impressive
In-Reply-To: <hell99$218$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
References: <4B0B553E.6000905@bellsouth.net>	<mailman.569.1259051673.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>	<helhc4$2n4a$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>	<mailman.582.1259228146.85486.enigmail@mozdev.org>
	<hell99$218$1@mozdev.mozdev.org>
Message-ID: <4B0E5E29.1050009@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26.11.2009 11:27, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 26.11.2009 10:35:
>> On 26.11.2009 10:21, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>>> Patrick Brunschwig venit, vidit, dixit 24.11.2009 09:34:
>>>> On 24.11.2009 04:38, John W. Moore III wrote:
>>>>> Well, it works anyway; at least with 3.0.1pre and IMO this is a
>>>>> fantastic Improvement.  :-D
>>>>
>>>>> I admit I am 'confused' regarding exactly why I must now utilize the
>>>>> version labeled '1.9.1' rather than the usual 'Trunk' version I am
>>>>> accustomed to Downloading and Installing; particularly /after/ 3 days of
>>>>> reverting back to the Nightly from 18 November but  'Oh Well' I'm
>>>>> H-A-P-P-Y now.  :-D
>>>>
>>>> The names of the branches are given by Thunderbird development:
>>>> Thunderbird 3.0 branched away from trunk several months ago. The
>>>> Thunderbird 3 branch is called "comm-1.9.1" (because it's based on Gecko
>>>> 1.9.1). Given that development of new features for Thunderbird 3  is
>>>> stopped and bug fixing is restricted to blockers, the focus is now more
>>>> and more switching to trunk. That's why the nightly builds of Enigmail
>>>> are called the way they are.
>>
>>> For now Enigmail version 1.0 (20091125-0859) from trunk actually works
>>> with TB3 from comm-1.9.1, i.e. Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
>>> rv:1.9.1.6pre) Gecko/20091125 Lightning/1.0pre Shredder/3.0.1pre. That
>>> is, when you compile it yourself.
>>
>>> If I understand Patrick correctly this may break when there are
>>> incompatible interface changes on comm-central, though.
>>
>> Given that TB 3 RC 1 is out, you can expect that the API for TB 3.0 will
>> remain unchanged -- at least if the TB developers follow the rules that
>> they defined ;-). API changes will very likely only occur on Thunderbird
>> trunk.
> 
> Yes, sure. What I meant was: With Enigmail trunk you are following the
> TB API on comm-central, right? So, Enigmail trunk (even self-compiled)
[...]

quite right.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSw5eKHcOpHodsOiwAQguOgf9FloQXExlzWY6/nUs6H+7qmzM5uk0YHK6
2erxV/hLwjQ8WLJyfuwe/XNpOJ3kxGfjUjj2ChpBe9ctNHPP2AIqPBnHZfDtFgm/
xi2hv8qJ6egjqBrOnsimJGhiB3o3uBljsJwRwzF0hNRscwvXBGFpETOU1ktKL7wb
4loyPdp5V2R4LeXR/b46Arf7aSyG9IUtntwz0IMqmh/vbW3EA+flUP9bAwAJ6kuK
R5H3ECo5JwLCND9qG+xMjQ/MbxTacg0qJ2ykRZeVUJZPTpUcMkMK4Bo/bgjt/9q9
pF186dcVzDPocGw1wplyCLMqn9gDOTdDAj1W61pLEhMPIVcgAAjQWw==
=0wOq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From dkg at fifthhorseman.net  Thu Nov 26 10:06:34 2009
From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:06:34 -0500
Subject: [Enigmail] jsctypes: another possible IPC approach (for FF 3.6)
Message-ID: <4B0EC3AA.1070304@fifthhorseman.net>

hi Patrick and everybody--

I just learned about jsctypes, a new feature that will be available to
chrome elements in FF 3.6 (presumably that means in xulrunner 1.9.2 ?)

  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript_code_modules/ctypes.jsm

anyway, it seems like the ability to invoke C-based library functions
directly might be interesting as a way to distribute a javascript-only
version of IPC.

i haven't done anything like try to get an implementation working, but i
thought it'd be worth pointing it out as a possible option for future
versions (we still need to figure out the today's situation anyway, of
course).

Regards,

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091126/01b8dd71/attachment.bin>

From faramir.cl at gmail.com  Thu Nov 26 10:07:56 2009
From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:07:56 -0300
Subject: [Enigmail] Translation of last version of Enigmail
In-Reply-To: <4B0B9C88.7050500@mozilla-enigmail.org>
References: <90266c3f0911231526j53c25bcama9bf2970394faf13@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B0B9C88.7050500@mozilla-enigmail.org>
Message-ID: <4B0EC3FC.7000207@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

 Patrick,
	Do I just add the sentences in the diff file to the translation of
Enigmail 0.96? Any order? I so, can you provide some context about when
do the following sentence appears?
+ <!ENTITY enigmail.keyDetails.keyPart.label           "Key Part">

        I finished the translation of Enigmail 0.96, but way out of
time, so I think it was not included, but that also means I am not sure
if I did it right or not (it was my first time translating an Add-on)

   Best Regards

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJLDsP8AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAIb8IAIP5zU7qB1fe+wOK1kA4f+S/
6Jj942iDeIezn2fIqbGaiQkIJOkxv8KUHf67EG0rwX866wjS7X3bKh8txgOmM8WT
OEPfY+w/XvGtx+3xG4XHmPjstcC2xb+M8E8IJMfCudBSPFkN2Wnjwu+NvUsYSlAa
Pg3Nj+AItGVpoEMLual6hAtFSvCx08rq9SZwbMeCnVhMMDW46sO6VZrYlsmiI+62
MhlRn9jN+AbcTJ79vESeB54dNlSwCBep9LdsXpa18FjLYU2p0W9lBoe53IhmYlY2
g7qXczA0jmQi05grN8A1CYILv/pUkt2k7VXKy+ChC4Bb/kjiCXPFE9M9Ij+pWio=
=gL3I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Fri Nov 27 00:12:45 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:12:45 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Translation of last version of Enigmail
In-Reply-To: <4B0EC3FC.7000207@gmail.com>
References: <90266c3f0911231526j53c25bcama9bf2970394faf13@mail.gmail.com>	<4B0B9C88.7050500@mozilla-enigmail.org>
	<4B0EC3FC.7000207@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B0F89FD.2060501@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26.11.2009 19:07, Faramir wrote:
>  Patrick,
> 	Do I just add the sentences in the diff file to the translation of
> Enigmail 0.96? Any order? I so, can you provide some context about when
> do the following sentence appears?

There is no particular order for DTD and properties files. The following
string belongs to the key details (= key properties) dialog.

> + <!ENTITY enigmail.keyDetails.keyPart.label           "Key Part">
> 
>         I finished the translation of Enigmail 0.96, but way out of
> time, so I think it was not included, but that also means I am not sure
> if I did it right or not (it was my first time translating an Add-on)

If you send it to me, I can create an XPI file with your translation, so
you can test if it works OK.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSw+J/HcOpHodsOiwAQgrkQf9F2MdPVNE7I15bfTSMuF7bF3ajlxmWO9N
+tVd8GTnGcICW9r3KCF6X3B1vj8gz3583UC2OqKNgnIOZnpr6ra5hIO5u4hiY/eq
FyjqR1s2ADmdbdHOFHB/iyBGfP49mkbt3zfgzqyrMKv+FnraqZ/tBdMnuNTzga0o
En5HiCbCoa7o/Hguza4a45CeZeRxfolL49tEICVz647QZMoeNBFdX2jh9cpj6nVM
4AyBpm0hbaNGVcF0UNrNQTE35t96FOx9ZHCZQzfgEsJmuSjQeG4WmxtMKZVq7i19
C9J1SkPMxcRqzowJkAJaz4O336xDSC+bS9SGlSqFVpxBrgYr9iolfQ==
=Ap3w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org  Fri Nov 27 02:33:47 2009
From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:33:47 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] jsctypes: another possible IPC approach (for FF 3.6)
In-Reply-To: <4B0EC3AA.1070304@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <4B0EC3AA.1070304@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <4B0FAB0B.7020501@mozilla-enigmail.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26.11.2009 19:06, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> hi Patrick and everybody--
> 
> I just learned about jsctypes, a new feature that will be available to
> chrome elements in FF 3.6 (presumably that means in xulrunner 1.9.2 ?)
> 
>   https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript_code_modules/ctypes.jsm
> 
> anyway, it seems like the ability to invoke C-based library functions
> directly might be interesting as a way to distribute a javascript-only
> version of IPC.


I'm not sure it's that easy. The key issue is platform dependency --
Linux and Windows C function to call a program and open a pipe are
completely different. Mac OS isn't just 1:1 the same as Linux and other
Unices either, not to talk of rare OSes like OS/2 ...

> i haven't done anything like try to get an implementation working, but i
> thought it'd be worth pointing it out as a possible option for future
> versions (we still need to figure out the today's situation anyway, of
> course).

Right, but I think you still need a wrapper C-library to unify access to
the platform specific C-functions.

- -Patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEVAwUBSw+rCncOpHodsOiwAQiPvAf/X5dQoht+1T/Jr7NLqKnhiYNokGKUPIQi
kWbth/G2G8Mc8p3A3vsjLjdDsMuGyJIfOuLdiaQTEjEWreL8w72aOsEtt8u0o4es
pJrcgo4+sZ0YSpgh58SJgGdWS0ClmBmGOgETqSXoym6kMIHVYRqTD7TTzFbWiGYN
K+jquBT2GvPGgEJMBVINpryHbA/8hkhL826Rd858NbiLd3V9Hbr459IvClg2h/0l
9B1vYltMTBmJEfE+9wa3PW9Rk9vJpN7bWq2MIIlxDK3WfPUEagJS49mQUyIfQj1W
p2FA7OgLuDPidwFpQmc/65aL3LtXX/CZiFJ6DkYGbU/Jb3Ldfjv8tQ==
=mIN1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From emma at sixflagsmail.com  Thu Nov 26 14:11:44 2009
From: emma at sixflagsmail.com (emma)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:11:44 +0000
Subject: [Enigmail] Leopard and GPG no longer working
Message-ID: <4B0EFD20.5080109@sixflagsmail.com>

Hi all,

I've just moved to snow leopard and my gpg with thunderbird enigmail is
no longer working.
Is there a quick fix to rectify this as its looking complex looking on
all the sites and I'm still pretty much a mac newbie.

Thanks in advance.

best
emma

From daniel074 at pop.k-net.dk  Thu Nov 26 23:58:16 2009
From: daniel074 at pop.k-net.dk (Chewie)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:58:16 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Reusing key from previous installation
Message-ID: <4B0F8698.80302@pop.k-net.dk>

Greetings

I have just reinstalled Thunderbird / Enigmail (and everything else on
computer) and wanted to reuse my previous key (which I have exported to
a file).

But I can't find anywhere to select what key thats my own, the wizard
just made me a new which I don't want to use because it will need to be
spread etc.

I deleted the key the wizard created but it is still trying to use that
key instead of the imported key when signing messages.

How do I fix my install, hope I won't have to make a new key, haven't
been able to find anyone else doing this, dunno if my search frases are
dumb, or the idea :)

Regards
Daniel

From John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org  Fri Nov 27 10:37:10 2009
From: John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org (John Clizbe)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:37:10 -0600
Subject: [Enigmail] Reusing key from previous installation
In-Reply-To: <4B0F8698.80302@pop.k-net.dk>
References: <4B0F8698.80302@pop.k-net.dk>
Message-ID: <4B101C56.2040501@Mozilla-Enigmail.org>

Chewie wrote:
> Greetings
> 
> I have just reinstalled Thunderbird / Enigmail (and everything else on
> computer) and wanted to reuse my previous key (which I have exported to
> a file).

Did you export both public and secret part of your key(s)?

> But I can't find anywhere to select what key thats my own, the wizard
> just made me a new which I don't want to use because it will need to be
> spread etc.

You need to manually import them first.

> I deleted the key the wizard created but it is still trying to use that
> key instead of the imported key when signing messages.
> 
> How do I fix my install, hope I won't have to make a new key, haven't
> been able to find anyone else doing this, dunno if my search phrases are
> dumb, or the idea :)

Import the secret key and public key you backed up. You did store them on some
otehr media before reformatting, right?

-- 
John P. Clizbe                      Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org
You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net  or
     mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP

Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?"
A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 679 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091127/30276290/attachment.bin>

From jarif at iki.fi  Fri Nov 27 10:40:52 2009
From: jarif at iki.fi (Jari Fredriksson)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:40:52 +0200
Subject: [Enigmail] Reusing key from previous installation
In-Reply-To: <4B0F8698.80302@pop.k-net.dk>
References: <4B0F8698.80302@pop.k-net.dk>
Message-ID: <4B101D34.4090204@iki.fi>



On 27.11.2009 9:58, Chewie wrote:
> Greetings
> 
> I have just reinstalled Thunderbird / Enigmail (and everything else on
> computer) and wanted to reuse my previous key (which I have exported to
> a file).
> 
> But I can't find anywhere to select what key thats my own, the wizard
> just made me a new which I don't want to use because it will need to be
> spread etc.
> 
> I deleted the key the wizard created but it is still trying to use that
> key instead of the imported key when signing messages.
> 
> How do I fix my install, hope I won't have to make a new key, haven't
> been able to find anyone else doing this, dunno if my search frases are
> dumb, or the idea :)
> 

OpenPGP -> Key Management -> Import Keys from file

That way I imported my keyring created years ago with the commercial PGP
software. It did not "see" the file as is, but I had to "force" it to
accept it.

It can not be hard to import a key from a previous OpenPGP installation,
as the file suffix probably suits to Enigmail at once.

You have to import the private key, and the use that key's id in settings.

-- 
http://www.iki.fi/jarif/

"Good afternoon, madam.  How may I help you?"

"Good afternoon.  I'd like a FrintArms HandCannon, please."

"A--?  Oh, now, that's an awfully big gun for such a lovely lady.  I
mean, not everybody thinks ladies should carry guns at all, though I
say they have a right to.  But I think... I might... Let's have a look
down here.  I might have just the thing for you.  Yes, here we are!
Look at that, isn't it neat?  Now that is a FrintArms product as well,
but it's what's called a laser -- a light-pistol some people call
them.  Very small, as you see; fits easily into a pocket or bag; won't
spoil the line of a jacket; and you won't feel you're lugging half a
tonne of iron around with you.  We do a range of matching accessories,
including -- if I may say so -- a rather saucy garter holster.  Wish I
got to do the fitting for that!  Ha -- just my little joke.  And
there's *even*... here we are -- this special presentation pack: gun,
charged battery, charging unit, beautiful glider-hide shoulder holster
with adjustable fitting and contrast stitching, and a discount on your
next battery.  Full instructions, of course, and a voucher for free
lessons at your local gun club or range.  Or there's the *special*
presentation pack; it has all the other one's got but with *two*
charged batteries and a night-sight, too.  Here, feel that -- don't
worry, it's a dummy battery -- isn't it neat?  Feel how light it is?
Smooth, see?  No bits to stick out and catch on your clothes, *and*
beautifully balanced.  And of course the beauty of a laser is, there's
no recoil.  Because it's shooting light, you see?  Beautiful gun,
beautiful gun; my wife has one.  Really.  That's not a line, she
really has.  Now, I can do you that one -- with a battery and a free
charge -- for ninety-five; or the presentation pack on a special
offer for one-nineteen; or this, the special presentation pack, for
one-forty-nine."

"I'll take the special."

"Sound choice, madam, *sound* choice.  Now, do--?"

"And a HandCannon, with the eighty-mill silencer, five GP clips, three
six-five AP/wire-fl'echettes clips, two bipropellant HE clips, and a
Special Projectile Pack if you have one -- the one with the embedding
rounds, not the signalers.  I assume the night-sight on this toy is
compatible?"

"Aah... yes,  And how does madam wish to pay?"

She slapped her credit card on the counter.  "Eventually."

		-- Iain M. Banks, "Against a Dark Background"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091127/391a3c11/attachment.bin>

From mlisten at hammernoch.net  Fri Nov 27 12:17:42 2009
From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:17:42 +0100
Subject: [Enigmail] Leopard and GPG no longer working
In-Reply-To: <4B0EFD20.5080109@sixflagsmail.com>
References: <4B0EFD20.5080109@sixflagsmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1033E6.2030404@hammernoch.net>

Hi,

emma wrote on 26.11.09 23:11:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've just moved to snow leopard and my gpg with thunderbird enigmail is
> no longer working.
> Is there a quick fix to rectify this as its looking complex looking on
> all the sites and I'm still pretty much a mac newbie.

First of all you need to separate, whether enigmail or the underlying
gnupg doesn't work.

Did you install gnupg on the new snow leo machine?

Ludwig




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/enigmail/attachments/20091127/0edf0623/attachment.bin>