On Friday 20 Jan 2012 07:57:38 Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:22:50PM -0600, Paul Hartman wrote: > > On 1/19/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Walters wrote: > > > On 1/19/2012 11:57 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:53:07AM -0600, Dale wrote: > > >>> While on this subject, sort of. Who on here as their email set up to > > >>> encrypt and decrypt emails? I want to test some things OFF LIST. > > >> > > >> Well, if you had signed your mail, then I could write you encrypted. > > >> :) > > > > > > This is a test. Enigmail has been trying to use a revoked and expired > > > key to sign my messages, lately. > > > > > > Chris > > > > Looks good to me, at least based on what's presently available in the > > keyservers. > > Hm... I seem to be too dumb. Mutt tells me that the msg is signed, but > doesn't tell me by whom (I know that I need to have the public key in my > keyring to see a name, but it doesn't even tell me the key ID). Saving the > whole mail to a file and verifying the sig doesn't work either, that too > is obvious because 1) only the text is signed, not the rest of the mail > and b) the signed stuff and the sig need to be two different files for gpg > --verify to work. So I saved the signature.asc and the text separately. > Now verification works and I see a key ID, but using gpg --search <key ID> > doesn't find the given key on the server. > > GPGing was much easier when KMail still worked. ^^
Yes, I dabbled with mutt but I found the gpg and s/mime rather cranky compared with the super-smooth integration of kmail and kgpg. Unfortunately with kdepim-4.7 the whole kmail experience has been a rather unpleasant one for me. :( -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
