Christoph Biedl <debian.a...@manchmal.in-ulm.de> writes: > * Omitting the hash declaration is not an option either, perl-nocem > fails then.
I'm somewhat surprised by this, as my impression was that these Hash lines are optional and GnuPG did the right thing if they were omitted entirely (although you do still need a blank line). I have not looked into this in detail, but I thought the hash algorithm was also present in metadata inside the signature itself. This is essentially required for the main use case of PGP::Sign, Usenet control messages, since the syntax of the X-PGP-Sig header has nowhere to put this metadata and thus it is always lost. perl-nocem itself doesn't seem to care and just copies the whole input into a temporary file for GnuPG. What's the nature of the failure? Is GnuPG failing to validate the resulting file if the hash algorithm is omitted? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
