Problems with GPGME returning "Not Implemented" or "Configuration error"

Jeffrey Stedfast jestedfa at
Fri Mar 10 12:48:47 CET 2017

Aha! This makes a lot of sense.

Thanks Werner!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Werner Koch [mailto:wk at]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:33 AM
> To: Jeffrey Stedfast <jestedfa at>
> Cc: gnupg-users at
> Subject: Re: Problems with GPGME returning "Not Implemented" or
> "Configuration error"
> On Wed,  8 Mar 2017 00:57, jestedfa at said:
> > I spotted the fact that I was (incorrectly) using
> > gpgme_op_decrypt_verify() when I think I should be using
> > gpgme_op_decrypt(), so I fixed that but I still get “Not Implemented”.
> The reason why it shows "Not implemented" is that you used
> gpgme_set_passphrase_cb () with GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS.  gpgsm does
> not support a passphrase callback in the same way as gpg does.  In particular
> gpgme sets up a command line edit handler to push the passphrase via the
> callback to to gpg.  gpgsm has no --command-fd option but only a --
> passphrase-fd option which can be used with --pinentry-mode=loopback.
> Right, this should be fixed.  I think we already have a feature request for this.
> As a workaround, you should
>   gpgme_set_passphrase_cb (ctx, NULL, NULL);
> after switching to GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS.  This will then use the pinentry
> and thus you need to provide a dummy pinentry for your test suite (or use
> no passphrase at all).
> Shalom-Salam,
>    Werner
> --
> Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list