Jussi, et al -- I don't have a lot to suggest, but a couple of things pop to mind...
...and then Jussi Ekholm said... % % Alain Bench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: % > On Saturday, August 3, 2002 at 4:43:48 PM +0300, Jussi Ekholm wrote: % > % >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed ... % This friend I had this email discussion, mentioned that his Mutt was % compiled on, I quote: 'SUN platform'. So, it sure needs further Heh. I bet you're just drowning in the flood of details! :-) % investigations but thanks for your ideas, I'll pass them to this % friend and hopefully he gets his Mutt 1.4i to understand my inline % (text/plain) PGP messages. Have you tried sending a really-and-truly just-ASCII message for him to verify? I haven't played with 1.5 to know one way or the other, but the way $p_c_t works (or used to) is that it is only good for ASCII, and if you throw in attachments or other charsets then it will roll back to MIME. Now admittedly these messages, with your scands inside, are also in-line signed, but I wonder if that's entirely healthy. ... % > Yes, the uml^Wscands show up well, and thanks to the CT parameter % > "x-action=pgp-signed" Mutt knows automatically it must be PGP % > verified. % % What is CT parameter? The Content-Type header. Look back at the first quoted line here in this reply :-) % % > But no, the signature is bad in my 1.4: % > % >| [-- PGP output follows -- sam 03 aoû 2002 23:08:52 CEST --] % >| gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E % >| gpg: BAD signature from "Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" % >| GPG RETURN VALUE = 1 % >| [-- End of PGP output -- BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE --] % % Weird. Weirder still, it's good for me! % % > ...the same mail is good verified with stock 1.5.1: % > % >| [-- PGP output follows (current time: sam 03 aoû 2002 23:10:17 CEST) --] % >| gpg: Signature made sam 03 aoû 2002 15:43:47 CEST using DSA key ID 1410081E % >| gpg: Good signature from "Jussi Ekholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" % >| GPG RETURN VALUE = 0 % >| [-- End of PGP output --] % % So, as I suspected, Mutt 1.4i seems to have some problems verifying % signatures from 1.5.1.CVS. Or am I completely wrong about this? It's Nope; both of your messages were fine. That sorta shoots a hole in my theory that you should stick to plain us-ascii for in-line signing, but I still say it's worth following up :-) HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg30164/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
