If I send myself a signed message, Mutt says "PGP signature successfully
verified.", which is very nice.
But if I send a signed and encrypted message, it says "PGP signature could
NOT be verified.", which is not so good.
Anybody have an idea why?
This is happening on a system with Mutt 1.4i and
Darrin --
...and then Darrin Mison said...
%
[LookOut! problem description snipped]
%
% know a way to correct this apart from surgically removing outlook ;-)
Well, that's definitely the right way, but you might look into
pgp_create_traditional to do in-line signatures. There was also an
Outh
People are complaining to me that my pgp signatures show up as unidentified attachments
which freaks them out (MS users). Is there a way to force the signature to identify
itself
as being what it is?
I also know a few outlook users which say that my signed messages turn up as a blank
message
signature, the pgp
> signature verification succeeds. More interestingly, if the space after the
> double-dash is removed, the signature verification ALSO SUCCEEDS. Now I
> know that the convention for signatures is '-- \n', but that space somehow
> seems to be breaking gpg
signature verification ALSO SUCCEEDS. Now I
know that the convention for signatures is '-- \n', but that space somehow
seems to be breaking gpg's ability to verify PGP signatures. Anyone have
any idea why this might be so?
--
Anand
PGP/GPG signatures are rampanton this list, and I am glad to see them out
there. One request: please upload your public keys to a keyserver. It does
not take long.
The reason I ask this is because some folks may have their mutt set up to
fetch your key from a keyserver. If it's there, they get a
As suggested, I applied some of Rosenfeld's key bindings to mutt, but ^p,
although it signs the body of the text, it does it with PGP 2.x by default,
and I can't see how to change this. Also, I got hold of Golanski's
.mutt.pgp, and added a few to mine. I added:
set pgp_sign_as="0x42337AE6"
so
At 8:09 AM EST on March 13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent off:
> Please, could anyone send to me the variables that need to be added in
> ~/.muttrc for mutt-i to work with pgp versions 2.6.3i and 5.0i, and with gpg
> altogether? (or, a muttrc file with all of them)
I recommend you look at Roland Rosenf
++ 13.03.1999, 14:09:06 (+0100) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>I don't know if what you suggest would fiddle with the signature and then
>produce a bad sig. Is there no other way to choose between an attached
>signature and a text signed message with mutt?
No, it wouldn't produce a bad signature. You can
Rejo dixit:
> ++ 12.03.1999, 17:45:14 (+0100) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >I most times see pgp signed messages as an attachment in mutt, though others
> >I see the signatures in the body of the messages. Why and how's this
> >difference? How can one and another been achieved?
>
> This is because th
++ 12.03.1999, 17:45:14 (+0100) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>I most times see pgp signed messages as an attachment in mutt, though others
>I see the signatures in the body of the messages. Why and how's this
>difference? How can one and another been achieved?
This is because the PGP signature is a par
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:19:45AM +0100, Rejo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using Mutt with support for PGP. As i'm subbed to several lists i
> sometimes see a posting with a signature of my own. Mutt tells me there
> was a 'Good signature', but also says 'This signature applies to another
> message'.
Hi,
I most times see pgp signed messages as an attachment in mutt, though others
I see the signatures in the body of the messages. Why and how's this
difference? How can one and another been achieved?
Also, could anyone send to me the variables that need to be added for mutt-i
to work with pgp
Hello,
I'm using Mutt with support for PGP. As i'm subbed to several lists i
sometimes see a posting with a signature of my own. Mutt tells me there
was a 'Good signature', but also says 'This signature applies to another
message'. What does imply this last line?
Also, when vieuwing the signatur
14 matches
Mail list logo
