- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Wed, Apr 30
I think you are correct.
Tue, Apr 29
I also spend some time with this and the problem is described by this comment in trustdb.c:
Mon, Apr 28
No, it is not a bug and I beg you not to change the status again. Don't start the same trouble here as some of you guys did with the IETF WG!
I can't speak for C++ but I appreciate that you used the same flag values as in gpgme proper.
Err, I don't see why I would "need to test" anything further.
This is just one build of PGP and you would need to test all versions on Windows, macOS and Unix. You also need to test against all versions of GnuPG since 1998 (when we started with interop tests). We won't change this in GnuPG and risk regression. If you have a problem with that go and add a fix to your tool - name it bug compatibility or whatever. And please do not re-open this bug.
In T7106#185462, @werner wrote:This has been implemented and tested to be compatible with PGP - a looong time ago. iirc this was discussed around 1999 but might be only by private mail between the PGP hackers and me. Thus any change now might break PGP - which is still widely used (although mostly for encryption).
Sun, Apr 27
The report is correct but it does not make sense to fix it. If you want to use a concrete expiration date just enter the IS date at the prompt; use ? at the prompt for a short description.
Sat, Apr 26
Fri, Apr 25
Fixed:
Thu, Apr 24
Thanks for the patch but I think it is better to fix this in yat2m. I created a new tag for bugs related to it.
turned out that not the flowcrypt encryption is the issue here. The cause seems to be the usage of Proofpoint "Email Warning Tags".
Wed, Apr 23
This is really a minor thing and and it is actually true if you also sign something.