Hi. Thought I comment on this. I am using Mutt, too (version 1.4i).
On Mon 2003-01-13 at 10:15:25 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Mark Watts wrote on Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 04:26:02PM +0000 :
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> > >
> > > iD8DBQE+HvQaBn4EFUVUIO0RAk2+AJ9LuSiutz2npZLSJaDBWnvW+06EXwCfb4+V
> > > WM/uO0C/uNNiuWGP4pFKrjI=
> > > =NrDF
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > Mark, your messages are not recognized by mutt as being signed messages.
> > I can tell this because I can see your pgp sig as quoted above instead
> > of being verified.
It's the same for me. But when I force looking for a signature by
check-traditional-pgp (ESC-P, that's ESC SHIFT-p), the signature is
found and I get the error that the key is unknown, as expected. After
this, the sig is not part of the message anymore.
AFAIK, this is the expected behaviour with mutt and ASCII-armored
signatures (which is supported by the fact that check-traditional-pgp
exists at all). Mutt only automatically recognizes MIME-signed mails.
I thought there was a config variable to make mutt check this by
default, but I cannot find it.
> Any mail that I send to a list (cooker,expert,qmail etc) all appears (to me)
> to be signed properly. I'm using the kmail that comes with 9.0 (1.4.3).
> All my messages (and others which are signed) have the nice coloured borders,
> and those keys that I've signed are comping up as so.
>
> Interestingly, the message I am replying to is not signed, wheras the other
> one from Todd further down this thread is signed.
HTH and sorry if I missed the point because I jumped into the middle
of the thread.
Regards,
Benjamin.
msg64129/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
