of that here,
don't we? ;)
--=20
Rob 'Feztaa' Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Q: How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A: Take away his credit cards.
--KsGdsel6WgEHnImy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
Hi!
I'm using CVS Mutt 1.5.0i, and I was just recently introduced to PGP
and now I'd like to assign Mutt to sign all of my outgoing mails with
my personal key... I've read the manual, I've read PGP man pages and
instructions, but I just can't figure what to put in:
set pgp_sign_command=
Any
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I'm using CVS Mutt 1.5.0i, and I was just recently introduced to PGP
and now I'd like to assign Mutt to sign all of my outgoing mails with
my personal key... I've read the manual, I've read PGP man pages and
instructions, but I just can't figure
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:48:28PM +0200:
Umm... as I saw my mail posted here, Mutt told me that the following
data is signed and all the other PGP stuff. So - am I doing it correctly
after all? :-)
No, you're not. Look at the contents of your mail
Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jussi Ekholm said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 11:48:28PM +0200:
Umm... as I saw my mail posted here, Mutt told me that the following
data is signed and all the other PGP stuff. So - am I doing it correctly
after all? :-)
No, you're not. Look
Shawn McMahon wrote:
I suggest you make use of one of the many sample files to be found on
the web. The links at mutt.org will take you to several, or a simple
Google search will turn up dozens more.
there are also sample files that come with the mutt distribution; what's
wrong with those?
emails to /dev/null.
msg25946/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Shawn McMahon wrote:
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at
02:32:41PM -0800:
and hopefully this won't set off a long discussion (yet again), but
many believe that it's generally silly (and unnecessary) to sign
posts to a public mailing list most of the time.
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest you make use of one of the many sample files to be found on the
web. The links at mutt.org will take you to several, or a simple Google
search will turn up dozens more.
I will, thank you. And I already
Moin,
* Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-03-24 00:03]:
begin quoting what Will Yardley said on Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 02:32:41PM -0800:
and hopefully this won't set off a long discussion (yet again), but many
believe that it's generally silly (and unnecessary) to sign posts to a
public
begin quoting what Thorsten Haude said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 12:47:14AM +0100:
If you object to my signatures, procmail is easily capable of routing all
of my emails to /dev/null.
I don't use Procmail. What now?
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
msg25951/pgp0.pgp
msg25952/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
there.
msg25953/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-03-24 00:59]:
begin quoting what Jussi Ekholm said on Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:52:56AM +0200:
ARGH! Of course I forgot to sign it. :-/ As I said, I am very, very
sorry for all the inconvenience and waste of bandwith from my behalf.
I hope I doesn't
who responds in this list.
That's one reason I sign everything.
If you do that, make sure you local-sign, not sign for export. The latter
would be a big no-no. The gpg and pgp documention goes into these subjects
in depth, IIRC.
msg25955/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Campaign
Looking for fine software \ /Respect for open standards
and/or web pages?X No HTML/RTF in email
http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley / \No M$ Word docs in email
msg25770/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys).
As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.
Some of my e-mail partners still have only pgp 2. I am looking now for a
smart/automatic way to select pgp2.rc depending on the recipients address,
because pgp 2
Ulli --
...and then Ulli Horlacher said...
%
% I have both installed pgp 2.6.3 and gpg 1.0.6 (with imported pgp keys).
% As default I use gpg.rc from the mutt source distribution.
Good enough. I presume you'll ensure that pgp2.rc is configured properly
as well.
%
% Some of my e-mail
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
displays in status
PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me for PGP public key or visit http://michal.waw.pl/PGP =--
--==--==--==--==--==-- Vodka. Connecting people.--==--==--==--==--==--
A chodzenie po górach SSIE!!!
signature in messages which
were _encrypted_ony_.
Well, obviously it _couldn't_ verify the signature - there is no
signature to verify?!?
Dave.
--
Dave Ewart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computing Manager, Epidemiology Unit, Oxford
Cancer Research UK
PGP: CC70 1883 BD92 E665 B840 118B 6E94 2CFD 694D E370
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:01:15PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
I suspect that mutt and gpg/pgp are doing everything right but that
you are misinterpreting the results. Have you and your colleague read
This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
NOT SIGNED
: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:44:40 +0100
From: Michal Kochanowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michal Kochanowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
Michal Kochanowicz [EMAIL
* Dave Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
Michal
), there is no signature to verify, which is why you get
PGP signature could NOT be verified.
So this message means:
You can't be sure who sent this mail because there were no signature
to check
and not:
The signature is BAD, so somebody is cheating
?
--
--= Michal [EMAIL PROTECTED] =--
--= finger me
?
Or maybe I'm stupid ;) Why write anything about signature if it wasn't
signed?
Because it wants to. Because it feels lonely and wants someone to talk
to. :-)
signed), there is no signature to verify, which is why you get
PGP signature could NOT be verified.
So this message means:
You can't
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:27:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.
Hmm, it doesn't appear to shout, since the key IDs don't match. I guess if
I were to create a key with an
this that I didn't
pay enough attention to, but here goes: my gut feeling is that mutt should
not try to understand the gpg/pgp output, because it might change with version
or language. Let the reader read the output in the
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
gpg
out of a book into an empty skull. - A. Bierce
Robert I. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/
PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
it become apparent once the message is decrypted, though?
If the message is decrypted. I happen to get a fair amount of encrypted
mail that I can't decrypt, so I get this message (PGP signature could
NOT be verified) quite often.
Michal didn't say in his first message after setting $pgp_good_sign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Rob Reid on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:57:51PM -0500:
Or is it that somebody could sneak in a
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
gpg: This message is OK! Blindly follow its instructions!
[-- PGP output
Hi
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
in status line information that signature could not be verified. And it
displays it despite of that in the message area one can see that message
is OK
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Michal Kochanowicz on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100:
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
displays in status line information
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
displays in status line information that signature could not be
verified. And it displays
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz muttered:
Hi
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
in status line information that signature could not be verified
Tim --
...and then Timothy Ball said...
%
% I know this is more of a procmail question, but no one on the procmail
% list seems to know or respond...
%
% I'm on a lot of mailing lists and I would like to strip out all the pgp
% sigs from messages but I don't know the correct kungfu to do
PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg25470/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* 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!
msg25471/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg25472/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
addresses, and one of those is
only to ease testing.
And I'm gonna modify those later so that for the first of the two, it
turns on classic inline signing.
msg25507/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I know this is more of a procmail question, but no one on the procmail
list seems to know or respond...
I'm on a lot of mailing lists and I would like to strip out all the pgp
sigs from messages but I don't know the correct kungfu to do this w/
procmail. Anyone do this before?
--timball
* Timothy Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 22:01]:
I'm on a lot of mailing lists and I would like to strip out
all the pgp sigs from messages but I don't know the correct
kungfu to do this w/ procmail. Anyone do this before?
:0
* Content-Type: multipart/signed
DEVNULL
works for me
Is there a way to tell Mutt to never PGP-sign messages to a certain
address, but continue to sign them otherwise, other than just remembering
to hit pf before sending?
msg25435/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% Is there a way to tell Mutt to never PGP-sign messages to a certain
% address, but continue to sign them otherwise, other than just remembering
% to hit pf before sending?
Do you mean something like
send-hook . set pgp_autosign
send-hook
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, David T-G wrote:
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% Is there a way to tell Mutt to never PGP-sign messages to a certain
% address, but continue to sign them otherwise, other than just remembering
% to hit pf before sending?
Do you mean something like
.
msg25438/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Now if you guys would just submit your keys to the public keyservers...
msg25439/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I couldn't find the answer in the manual, so I'm asking it here:
How do I make mutt not bother checking PGP signatures on messages
(since I don't have anyone's PGP keys anyway)?
--zS7rBR6csb6tI2e1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Volker Moell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020125 14:45]:
% mail). It would be so much easier for everyone if check-traditional-=
pgp
% would become a variable
/nl.po.rej
patching file po/sv.po
Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file po/sv.po.rej
Thanks,
Viktor
--
Viktor Rosenfeld
WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/
msg23923/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
David T-G wrote:
Hokay. As below, I just wanted to make sure of what we were discussing.
I've changed the subject line to help :-)
Good, thanks!
You realize what you're asking, right? With PGP/MIME, mutt simply has to
look at the headers to see what it must do, and that's already done
there obviously is
| none. Could this be safely ommited?
Viktor, I was revisiting some code related to the pgp code and remembered
this thread about p_c_t and non-us-ascii messages. Using your patch as a
guideline, I have created a new patch with some slight variations from
your
On 22-Jan-2002 11:05 David Shaw wrote:
|
|Create an application/pgp message? ([yes]/no):
|
| Since it's not an application/pgp message at this point, the prompt
| should probably be something else.
Thanks for the input David. In my haste, I forgot to update the messages
to reflect
was revisiting some code related to the pgp code and remembered
this thread about p_c_t and non-us-ascii messages. Using your patch as a
guideline, I have created a new patch with some slight variations from
your own. In particular, I removed the 'filename=msg.pgp' (use_disp = 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ive started running the latest version of Mutt and have noticed
something odd. Whenever a PGP signed/encrypted message is displayed I
get a ? between lines. Here's an example:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Fri 18 Jan 2002 06:27:03 AM CST
On Fri 18-Jan-2002 at 06:31:02AM -0600, John Perry wrote:
Ive started running the latest version of Mutt and have noticed
something odd. Whenever a PGP signed/encrypted message is displayed I
get a ? between lines.
It's fixed for me in mutt-1.3.26 (just released).
--
Bruno
* Dallam Wych [EMAIL PROTECTED] [14-01-2002 03:11]:
| Hi List,
| I just moved from 1.3.22 up to 1.3.25. Now, when I sign or encrypt a
| mail I get this:
|
| [--End of PGP output--]
| ?
| [--The following data is signed--]
| ?
|
| content of message
| sig
|
| [--End of signed data--]
|
| What
patch.
I know this may seem a bit stupid but I can't find on the mutt.org
webpages any mention of an anonymous cvs server. Is there one? And if so
how does one access it?
--
Benjamin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg23099/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
patch.
Thanks,
That worked on that machine.
Regards,
Dallam
--
Dallam Wych [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1024: A89A2371 Ipsa scientia potestas est
2717 4EB8 461D 743B 47CF Registered Linux User
0D68 C32A 5CDE A89A 2371 counter.li.org:213656
msg23100/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
I know this may seem a bit stupid but I can't find on the mutt.org
webpages any mention of an anonymous cvs server. Is there one? And if so
how does one access it?
ftp://ftp.mutt.org/pub/mutt/snapshots/
igor
--
Uptime : 33 days, 10:45
PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg23102/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In pgp.c, in the function pgp_copy_checksig.
It returns -1, failure, on finding no pattern to match against, which
is contrary to the documentation (Which implies that mutt relies
solely on the exit code if the pgp_good_sign is absent. This makes
Ben --
...and then Benjamin Smith said...
%
% (OT: When I reply to traditional PGP posting like this one, I get the
% signature data inserted into the reply, is there any way this can be
% avoided? TIA).
Unfortunately, that's part of what you get when one includes the
signature in the body
to Unix
msg23063/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:58:54AM +0100, Cristian wrote:
This Email is signed the same way as described above. So you can try
to verify it with whatever you use.
I don't know about PGP/Outlook, but I just tried (piping your email direct
into GPG), and got this:
gpg: CRC error; 947beb
Hi List,
I just moved from 1.3.22 up to 1.3.25. Now, when I sign or encrypt a
mail I get this:
[--End of PGP output--]
?
[--The following data is signed--]
?
content of message
sig
[--End of signed data--]
What are the ? doing there? More importantly, how do I get rid of
them?
Regards,
Dallam
.pgp
Description: PGP signature
signature short of replacing all the
buggy MTAs in the world or adopting a scheme like PGP/MIME. (The
signature is good here, so no buggy MTAs in the path here this
time).
This is the risk one takes using traditional PGP signatures:
occasionally a signature gets broken in transport.
--
David
/
msg23011/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
% only if both pgp_outlook_compat and pgp_create_traditional are set.
%
% The proposal is to dump application/pgp, and make p_c_t result in
% a plain text MIME type for clearsigned messages.
%
% That's right. This can be achieved by integrating the patch into the
% next full release of Mutt
. Soulier [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort. -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix
msg22943/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
causes mutt to generate messages readable by
users of MS Outlook using PGP.
ladd% dpkg -l | grep mutt
ii mutt 1.3.24-2 Text-based mailreader supporting MIME,
GPG,
looks like they're from the same date, as well:
to Unix
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!
msg22955/pgp0.pgp
Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg22957/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi David,
David T-G wrote:
How, however, is the proposed behavior (making $p_c_t generate a
text/plain instead of an application/pgp message) different from what we
have now with $p_c_t and $p_o_c? Note that I don't say that it fixes the
problem you bring up, but it will fix the problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Viktor,
I agree with everything you say (though I do hope the story about
rebinding the y-key was a joke). Your patch is important for the
wide-spread use of PGP in non-english communication.
I just checked that with your patch, I can finally use Mutt to sign
Hi Christian,
I agree with everything you say (though I do hope the story about
rebinding the y-key was a joke). Your patch is important for the
wide-spread use of PGP in non-english communication.
Why? It's the best I could come up with.
I just checked that with your patch, I can
that much info from gpg about
the valid status.
That's correct.
--
Thomas Roesslerhttp://log.does-not-exist.org/
msg22763/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Package: mutt
Version: 1.3.25i
Severity: important
-- Please type your report below this line
The typical PGP message is encapsulated with its signature in PGP-MIME
format. Many mail programs cannot handle that and, although its use is
not encouraged, mutt now includes
Qrprapl Npg!
msg22813/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
no 'S' appears.
% |
% | Make sure that the signature is being verified when you hit esc-P, 'cuz I
% | thought it didn't until you opened the message (once it was recognizable
% | as a PGP message).
%
% I did; after opening and verifying, pager shows the message exactly
% the same as a PGP/Mime
Hi, Nick,
'man gpg' has a section How to specify a user ID giving details of it.
charlie
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:28:19PM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote:
Thanks Morten. I'm on the Man page as I write!
I got confused as the key in Justins example is 10chars and mine was 8.
Am I correct in
On Jan 08, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
% 1. use the new check-traditional-pgp command from the index on a message
%that has an old-style pgp signature
% 2. note that the 's' flag appears to indicate the presence of the signature
% 3. view the message, with pgp_verify_sig=no
% 4
Hi Mutt PGP users,
hello to the Mutt developers,
nobody seems to notice that not only Outlook gets confused by
application/pgp messages -- Pine cannot handle them, too!
That means that with an unpatched Mutt it is impossible to create
PGP signed or encrypted emails for Outlook or Pine users
Jeremy, et al --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% On Jan 08, David T-G [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
% % 1. use the new check-traditional-pgp command from the index on a message
% %that has an old-style pgp signature
% % 2. note that the 's' flag appears to indicate the presence
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* and then on 09-01-02 13:03 Cristian said
All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:56:53PM +0100, Cristian wrote:
I think this issue is a strong point in favour of ME's suggestion:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:40:53AM -0800, Michael Elkins wrote:
At this point I have to agree with this sentiment
, at least for those using Vim?
It's been a long time since anyone has called me a gentleman. :)
--
John Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome!
http://www.jpunix.com
PGP/GPG key 164BDBAE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* On 09-01-02 at 14:03
* John Perry said
I really hope this happens. The application/pgp MIME type is ok
but it's ahead of it's time. I too use a macro in Vim to handle GPG. It
would be great if Mutt itself would use text/plain
Hi,
of course it is possible to create traditional PGP messages in a
decent editor. I just successfully tried to use the Mailcrypt package
for Emacs when editing a message for Mutt in post.el mode.
There's just one caveat: I had to set noedit_headers to avoid signing
the headers as well. I
On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 02:06:06PM +0100, Nick Wilson wrote:
* On 09-01-02 at 14:03
* John Perry said
I really hope this happens. The application/pgp MIME type is ok
but it's ahead of it's time. I too use a macro in Vim to handle GPG. It
would be great if Mutt itself would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* On 09-01-02 at 15:05
* John Perry said
Did I miss a patch for this? Guess I was reading my mail too fast. Can
someone point me to it?
Hi
I hope were talking about the same thing, I'm very new to mutt.
I mean the pgp_outlook_compat patch
On Jan 09, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how pgp_create_traditional is set.
Time for a change of policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Jeremy Blosser hath spake thusly:
Note that viewing *this* message did not change the 's' to 'S' even
though I have verification on and the signature was good because I have
not signed my copy of your key. I expect
Jeremy --
...and then Jeremy Blosser said...
%
% On Jan 09, Nick Wilson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
% All PGP users I know either use Pine or Outlook, so as far as I am
% concerned, (unpatched) Mutt's PGP support is currently only usable for
% the Mutt mailing lists -- no matter how
* Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-01-2002 16:27]:
| I'm finding that some of my messages, which all seem to be either
| PGP-MIME or converted using the procmail rules, NEVER change from 's'
| to 'S' even when signature verifies and I HAVE signed the user's key.
With me, all PGP/Mime
you hit esc-P, 'cuz I
thought it didn't until you opened the message (once it was recognizable
as a PGP message).
%
% --
% René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
%
% In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier
* On 09-01-02 at 17:59
* René Clerc said
With me, all PGP/Mime signed messages show up with an 's' if they're
not verified yet; it changes to an 'S' when I open them and they're
verified, even when I haven't signed the user's key.
The clearsigned messages (like yours, Derek), show up
is being verified when you hit esc-P, 'cuz I
| thought it didn't until you opened the message (once it was recognizable
| as a PGP message).
I did; after opening and verifying, pager shows the message exactly
the same as a PGP/Mime signed message.
--
René Clerc - ([EMAIL
)
{
msg22731/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
401 - 500 of 1369 matches
Mail list logo
