VSD 3.3.0:

The button for "Encrypt to others" is gone:

Looks like scdaemon which I experienced today also but without having enabled scdaemon logging.

VSD 3.3.0: The buttons work as soon as the certificates are imported. (Depending on the card this will take some time)

Logs of a recent hang

VSD 3.3.0:

Haven't seen this in a while.

works in VSD 3.3.0:

VSD 3.3.0:

VSD 3.3.0: OK.

ok in VSD 3.3.0, too

Closed after the release of 2.5.4

You have imported a certificate with secret key.

You have imported a certificate with secret key.

Fingerprint: XXX
User ID: ABC

Here are some ideas:

Also, we should not forget the context of the whole dialog in the window. So we get the wording right, especially regarding key / certificate.

Removed in https://invent.kde.org/pim/kleopatra/-/merge_requests/369

In T5780#195277, @ikloecker wrote:

For me the change fixes the problem on Windows. (I haven't checked if there was a problem on Linux/X11, but I have verified that the change also works on Linux/X11.)

We do support "Decrypt & Verify" for multiple files (including the presentation of the status) so that it would be easy to do the same for all files in a folder (question is if this should even be recursive). Digging into the history I found that the desktop file was added shortly before Kleopatra 2.0.0-rc1, but that there wasn't any code for iterating a folder, i.e. this can never have worked.

I can't remember that we ever had support this. It is also not easy to come up with the good way to present the status for all files in a folder. We would need to define a format similar to what sha1sum uses: A list of file with they signature file or so. Note that kleopatra has support for running sha256sum in such a way.

We don't have this exact action on windows, but the normal "Decrypt & Verify" action shows up for folders there (and doesn't work either).

Can now be tested after the release of libassuan 3.0.2 (T6163)

"Exclusive user" sounds a bit odd and could still be misinterpreted. A native speaker would probably say "Are you the sole user of this secret key?“ or (even better and shorter) "Are you the only user of this secret key?"

Background of my "reminder" comment: we were discussing to establish a sane workflow for sharing keys. Which is quite commonly done e.g. for functional mail addresses, but usually people seem to share the whole secret key which is not advisable. We would want people to only share subkeys for that purpose.
It was the case that somebody gets a subkey for such an "offline" primary for the first time which I was thinking of.

Details should be the first action (since it's likely the most often used action by people who don't know about double-click). And I'd move the "destructive actions" to the bottom. And there are way to many separators.

In T7502#198141, @ebo wrote:

Reminder: we have to keep in mind the workflow of the import of secret subkeys. Do we need different behavior conditional on "is primary key present" or not?

Reminder: we have to keep in mind the workflow of the import of secret subkeys. Do we need different behavior conditional on "is primary key present" or not?

With my initial suggestions, modified by:

Another thing (should definitely go into a new ticket if we want to do something regarding this):

Again for Gpg4win 4.4.0, this time with better attention (and definitively encryption only):

Shorter version:

Possible explanation text for the user regarding the background of the question (probably to long):

This is the current (VSD 3.3.0) state for Japanese (with German as fallback):

Everything mentioned above was translated and is now shown that way in all three languages.

I would keep the "create group", too.

In T7515#198012, @alexk wrote:

Regarding the suggest list I would change the following:
but keep:

• Enable/Disable Certificate

Regarding the suggest list I would change the following:

Fixed.

In T7515#197774, @TobiasFella wrote:

I'd suggest removing:

I'd suggest removing:

If a single OpenPGP certificate is updated then we now show the same detailed information for the update from WKD as for the update from a keyserver, i.e. if the certificate didn't change via WKD then we say so.

I think there's some confusion.