OpenPGP on paper

Stefan Claas sac at
Fri Feb 1 21:06:16 CET 2019

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 20:23:26 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 01/02/2019 17:37, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > Tesseract did not do a good job, to many errors.  
> Just an idea: OCR'ing a special OCR font like the two classics I
> mentioned will go a lot better if the OCR engine *knows* it is looking
> at that font. They designed the glyphs to be dissimilar. I don't know if
> there are any free software OCR engines that can restrict themselves to
> a specific font, I'm just reasoning about it without domain knowledge.
> Also, if you choose an encoding that avoids similar glyphs like one and
> ell, zero and oh, etcetera, your miss rate should go down.

Well, i googled a bit and it seems one has to train tesseract to give good
results. As understood Google's engine uses also tesseract, but it must
be trained then pretty good, i assume.

> > Then i googled a bit and ... Google can do it.  
> That doesn't seem useful for secret letters. And I don't think you'll
> get an offline engine which has been trained like theirs from them.

Probably not, but i thought to share my findings.

> PS: Could you removed the (was: ...) bit from the subject in replies? I
> think I'll stop doing that type of formatting from now on. I saw it
> being used quite some time back and when it works it's okay, so I
> followed suit. But it's not working that well anymore.

Sorry, i always overlook this ...


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list