Hi Robert, > > I think it should return 1 in this case. But I get 2. Why? > > Because there were no bad signatures. A signature which cannot be > verified is neither good nor bad, it just is.
ok. > The alternative would be for GnuPG to return a bad signature literally > *whenever* it had no public key with which to verify the signature, > meaning that 99% of signatures on a mailing list would be reported as > bad. Can you imagine the bug reports we'd get from people if that were > the case? "Your software package is listing every single signed message > I've received as being bad!" Hmm, but according to the manpage you currently get a returncode meaning "fatal error" in this case. That sounds much more severe to me than a bad signature. Kind regards, Gerd _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
