Hi, * Thorsten Haude [02-07-13 15:24:58 +0200] wrote: > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-07-11 23:41]:
> So I seem to have the GMX problem without GMX. Could you > tell me what exactly I should be looking for in the > mboxes? Could you send be your solution? My solution is to run the body of every mail through: sed 's/^>from/from' and sed 's/^>From/From' But that won't help you. If you like I can post Gerhard Häring's Python solution, too (he tracked the problem down to GMX). > What are the effects of the problem you still have? All I > could see here is that the status column is not changed > from 's' to 'S'. Right, that's the only effect left after commenting out the two lines of code. > >It would be really interesting to compare the raw message > >of one you can't verify to one somebody else can. > What "raw message"? The part of the mbox because allthough the decoded messages may be the same, the raw encoded need not. > We have two cases: One is verified by GPG but not by Mutt, > the other one is rejected by both GPG and Mutt. The second case is solved for me since those mails made the broken GMX mbox parser react. The first case is what I'm talking about. What I have to mention is that I noticed (when I first noticed the problem) all such mails to non- PGP/MIME mails. Maybe this is important. I had a procmail rule (from mutt documentation) which removes the content- type 'plain' and sets something more suitable. I removed it (because of pgp_check_traditional) but the majority still has inline signatures. Shouldn't this discussion be off list? bye, Rocco
