On Friday, 2014-07-11 02:24:15 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> It sounds like i need to go back to the original correspondent and
> clarify their configuration to see if i can replicate this with
> non-sensitive data.
from previous email:
> My other correspondent's mail header shows:
>
> User-Agen
On 07/11/2014 12:47 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Could you send me (privately) an encrypted and signed message with your
> kmail instance? I don't care what it says, but leave the body as a
> simple text/plain part -- no HTML formatting or attachments, and ask
> kmail to sign/encrypt with PGP/
On 07/10/2014 06:18 PM, Samir Nassar wrote:
> On Thursday, 2014-07-10 17:53:52 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
> wrote:
>> But i'm concerned because it seems like enigmail ought to be able to
>> parse the kmail construction, at least if the top-level cleartext part
>> is itself multipart/signed.
>
> I am ha
On Thursday, 2014-07-10 17:53:52 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> But i'm concerned because it seems like enigmail ought to be able to
> parse the kmail construction, at least if the top-level cleartext part
> is itself multipart/signed.
I am happy to help. I'm running KMail 4.13.2, is your referenc
On 07/09/2014 05:20 AM, Olav Seyfarth wrote:
> I don't see that behaviour here, so could you please be more specific on your
> settings:
>
> - global sending settings "convenient"
The "Sending" tab shows "Convenient encryption settings" is set.
> - global key selection settings
[X] By Per-Rec
hi folks--
a friend recently sent me a PGP/MIME encrypted/signed message from
k-mail 1.13.7.
enigmail decrypted it but claimed "bad signature".
Looking at it in more detail, i see that the message is structured like
this:
A └┬╴multipart/encrypted
B ├─╴application/pgp-encrypted attachment
C └─
