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
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
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
, 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's ability to verify PGP signatures. Anyone have
any idea why this might be so?
Someone else will know
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
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 the PGP
++ 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
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
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
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'. What
11 matches
Mail list logo
