Re: [Duplicity-talk] Checksums of fileparts on the remoteserver

[Gabriel Ambuehl]

On Friday 14 September 2007 15:23:47 Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> > So.. can duplicity do that?
> We could generate checksums on the fly, but the signatures do that job
> anyway, so I don't see a need for additional checks.  Opinions?

Assuming you have ssh access to the machine you store your backups on, 
couldn't one simply run gpg to verify the signatures (if you can't execute 
code on the remote machine, the only way will be to download them at which 
point you're basically back to verify command I believe)? Checksums per se 
don't seem very useful to me, unless you're going to do the same as with gpg 
and then they seem somewhat redundant?

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.