Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-28 Thread Omar Alvarez
El jue, 27-01-2005 a las 21:30 -0700, Ronal B Morse escribió: That's the arrogance that sends people running back to Outlook, screaming as they go. Don't worry, I won't do :) I asked that because in other mail clients such Mozilla Mail + Enigmail you can select in what servers look for. And

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-28 Thread Omar Alvarez
El vie, 28-01-2005 a las 00:14 -0600, Ron Johnson escribió: On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 10:39 +0800, Not Zed wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:59 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote: man gpg That doesn't tell him what he needs to know.

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-27 Thread Not Zed
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:59 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote: man gpg That doesn't tell him what he needs to know. Well, it does actually. People learn more when they find out for themselves, particularly since it is rather off-topic for

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-27 Thread Ronal B Morse
That's the arrogance that sends people running back to Outlook, screaming as they go. On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 10:39 +0800, Not Zed wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:59 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote: man gpg That doesn't tell him

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-27 Thread Ron Johnson
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 10:39 +0800, Not Zed wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 02:59 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote: man gpg That doesn't tell him what he needs to know. Well, it does actually. People learn more when they find out for

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Andre Klapper
Am Mittwoch, den 26.01.2005, 15:57 +0530 schrieb Sandip Bhattacharya: Why does Evolution say invalid signature when it really means Signature couldn't be verified (because public key not in keyring)? because it's a bug. ;-) see http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=56878 , it would be

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Omar Alvarez
Perharps it's a bit offtopic, but... is it possible to change the servers where evolution looks for the pgp key? It could be a simple way of resolving this problem to me. ___ evolution maillist - evolution@lists.ximian.com

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Not Zed
man gpg On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 00:46 +0100, Omar Alvarez wrote: Perharps it's a bit offtopic, but... is it possible to change the servers where evolution looks for the pgp key? It could be a simple way of resolving this problem to me. ___

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Not Zed
I dont think its important. There are really only 2 states. Good/trusted, or not. You can click on the icon for more details, but the only important info for normal use is whether it is trusted or not. On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 15:57 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: Why does Evolution say

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Sandip Bhattacharya
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:30 +0800, Not Zed wrote: I dont think its important. There are really only 2 states. Good/trusted, or not. You can click on the icon for more details, but the only important info for normal use is whether it is trusted or not. I feel the two states are: 1. Have

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Not Zed
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:50 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:30 +0800, Not Zed wrote: I dont think its important. There are really only 2 states. Good/trusted, or not. You can click on the icon for more details, but the only important info for normal use is

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Russell Fulton
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:50 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:30 +0800, Not Zed wrote: I dont think its important. There are really only 2 states. Good/trusted, or not. You can click on the icon for more details, but the only important info for normal use is

Re: [Evolution] Misleading PGP/GPG signature message

2005-01-26 Thread Sandip Bhattacharya
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 20:17 +1300, Russell Fulton wrote: I feel the two states are: 1. Have key in keyring: This has three sub states: a. Good the key is trusted b. Good but the key is *not* trusted (e.g. security updates where you might not have a chain of trust to the signer)