GnuPG & PGP Compatibility

[Neil Williams]

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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'=
t=20
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=
not=20
do. So by having command-line answers, you have WinPT answers. You need to=
=20
make the changes, as declared in the FAQ, to the gpg.conf file to allow the=
=20
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=
pg
> format.

If GnuPG can do it, so can WinPT. WinPT has no functionality of it's own, i=
t's=20
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=
=20
that puts sole trust in three characters and a dot. Linux and MacOS look at=
=20
the content. To make things easier to understand, use the -a option to outp=
ut=20
the signature or encrypted block as ASCII armour - it'll be easy to see tha=
t=20
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=
ng

Rubbish. Anyway, the configuration change is a once-only thing. I'm sure yo=
u=20
can manage to edit one text file.
;-)

> files.

Same thing, encrypting a file is still done using a client of some kind if =
you=20
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=
=20
compatibility with PGP 5+ without affecting normal GnuPG performance.
3. You appear confused - there is no reason from what you've described to n=
ot=20
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=
rst=20
place and those haven't changed.
5. Is editing a single config file too much to ask?

=2D --=20

Neil Williams
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
http://www.codehelp.co.uk/
http://www.dclug.org.uk/
http://www.isbn.org.uk/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/isbnsearch/

http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?qs=3D0x8801094A28BCB3E3
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAaXv7iAEJSii8s+MRAp77AJ42yeEnHv9T8ypE4A1mdbJsXcUm+gCeLged
GppkenCCQXKKdiGFW64X5gE=3D
=3DQKMx
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----