On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:44 -0800, Robert Smits wrote: > I'm using the KGpg that comes with Suse 10.1. I use the KDE desktop and hence > Kmail to send my email. > > When I sign a message with my personal key, when it leaves my outbox the > message is marked by a green banner saying "Message was signed by > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0xA3DF27D8336EF8A7). > The signature is valid and the key is ultimately trusted." > > If I send it to myself, the messages comes back with a red banner saying > "Message was signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0xA3DF27D8336EF8A7). > Warning: The signature is bad." > > The signature itself is not outdated, so why is this happening? > > Thanks, Bob.
Sorry I don't have an answer to your question, but FWIW your signature is appears to be valid in Evolution (see below). I am also running SuSE 10.1 and use Kgpg. As much as I would like to, I can't use Kmail for a completely unrelated reason. Dave <Q> This message is signed with a valid signature,but the sender of the message cannot be verified. gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) gpg: Signature made Fri 22 Dec 2006 17:45:15 EST using DSA key ID 336EF8A7 gpg: requesting key 336EF8A7 from hkp server wwwkeys.pgp.net gpg: armor header: Version: SKS 1.0.10 gpg: pub 1024D/336EF8A7 2006-07-13 Bob Smits (New 10.1 key) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> gpg: using classic trust model gpg: key 336EF8A7: public key "Bob Smits (New 10.1 key) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 gpg: Good signature from "Bob Smits (New 10.1 key) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" gpg: aka "[jpeg image of size 7778]" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: A2DE 65EB F87B BC71 ECB3 BA6F A3DF 27D8 336E F8A7 gpg: binary signature, digest algorithm SHA1 </Q> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
