1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ppauly@gmail.com>) id 1Svpbx-0005o2-0x
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=ppauly@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Svpbr-0004hB-Bx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:13 +0000
Received: by lags15 with SMTP id s15so3338341lag.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.103.194 with SMTP id fy2mr5235670lbb.64.1343653320793;
Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.101.1 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5015F197.4040302@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP045E8zh+tJ5YSwXPWxLq9x-HRFTUrAwXxki_B6LLxtGA@mail.gmail.com>
<201207291715.15969.luke@dashjr.org> <5015F197.4040302@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:02:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKXfWbSKV-eNX-0PrLSdRb4bU97zRQtobGRFkeJ6wbA0v7FMdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Pauly <ppauly@gmail.com>
To: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040169afe31d9704c60baa16
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(ppauly[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Svpbr-0004hB-Bx
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Signing release binaries
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:13 -0000
--f46d040169afe31d9704c60baa16
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I'd like to see the binaries signed with gpg, independent of any signatures
required for various operating systems.
I can't imagine a worse scenario than the bitcoin.org site being hacked and
the binaries replaced with wallet-stealing code. All of the developers seem
to have gpg keys, how hard can it be to provide a detached gpg signature
for the binary?
--f46d040169afe31d9704c60baa16
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>I'd like to see the binaries signed with gpg, independent of any s=
ignatures required for various operating systems.=A0<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>I can't imagine a worse scenario than the <a href=3D"http://bitc=
oin.org">bitcoin.org</a> site being hacked and the binaries replaced with w=
allet-stealing code. All of the developers seem to have gpg keys, how hard =
can it be to provide a detached gpg signature for the binary?</div>
<br>
--f46d040169afe31d9704c60baa16--
|
