Hi, * David T-G [04/15/02 14:17:40 CEST] wrote: > I always thought that it > was checking the signature of the message to make sure the message hadn't > been modified, but "good signature" with "could not be verified" seems to > contradict that...
I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten content-type headers by formail. The rules for procmail are given in the PGP-Notes.txt distributed with mutt. Allthough this is called the old way of verification, I think it shouldn't stop working. Cheers, Rocco.
msg27484/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
