GnuPG & PGP Compatibility
linux at codehelp.co.uk
Tue Mar 30 15:54:03 CEST 2004
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 2:22, Rusty Howell wrote:
> Actually sir, I did read the FAQ's that you mentioned.
Then please say so in your message and explain why you think the FAQ doesn'=
answer your query. Ta.
> They did not answer my question regarding WinPT and whether or not its
WinPT is just a frontend - it doesn't do anything that the command line can=
do. So by having command-line answers, you have WinPT answers. You need to=
make the changes, as declared in the FAQ, to the gpg.conf file to allow the=
exchange as you request. WinPT only does some of what GnuPG can do and to=20
make subtle changes like this, you need to edit the config file.
> internal version of PGP 5+ would be able to decrypt the file stored in .g=
If GnuPG can do it, so can WinPT. WinPT has no functionality of it's own, i=
just a facade. (Stop talking to the monkey and talk to the organ grinder!)
BTW the .gpg is a red herring. Any extension can be used, it's only Windows=
that puts sole trust in three characters and a dot. Linux and MacOS look at=
the content. To make things easier to understand, use the -a option to outp=
the signature or encrypted block as ASCII armour - it'll be easy to see tha=
the content is compatible.
> An end-user isn't going to be comfortable with the command-line for every
> day use. Also, I'm not talking about simple e-mails, but rather encrypti=
Rubbish. Anyway, the configuration change is a once-only thing. I'm sure yo=
can manage to edit one text file.
Same thing, encrypting a file is still done using a client of some kind if =
prefer. Again, it's just a pretty box that asks GnuPG to do the work. For=20
this to work, GnuPG must be correctly configured and the pretty box knows=20
nothing about such details.
> You have me thinking that perhaps PGP is the way to go after all to ensure
> full compatibility.
1. Post to the list, not to me.
2. It is clearly explained in the FAQ that GnuPG can be configured for full=
compatibility with PGP 5+ without affecting normal GnuPG performance.
3. You appear confused - there is no reason from what you've described to n=
use GnuPG / WinPT. It's only a simple change to a single text file.
4. There were presumably good reasons for choosing GnuPG over PGP in the fi=
place and those haven't changed.
5. Is editing a single config file too much to ask?
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users