Hello Aaron,
On Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 5:38:20 PM -0500, Aaron Schrab wrote:
[quoted-unreadable encoding]
some dots *not* beginning a line were rejected at beginning of next
one, because of QP soft cutting long lines... And Mutt didn't notice
it should have encoded it.
Yeah, I'd say
Hello Rocco,
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 12:23:08 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from
That seems to work.
So your problem is solved? Dan: yours too? Thorsten: this should
solve partly your problem, for half the IDs you gave, but you have
another
Hi,
* Alain Bench [05/03/02 03:13:53 CEST] wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 12:23:08 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from
That seems to work.
Doesn't. I don't what I tested, but the problem remained.
So your problem is solved?
Yes. As
Hello, all --
...and then Alain Bench said...
%
...
% According to the manual, gpg has to return an exit value of non zero
% making mutt reporting a bad signature allthough it's good.
%
% Exactly: Non zero GPG exit code *or* $pgp_good_sign not matching GPG
% output, lead Mutt to say PGP
Mike --
...and then mike ledoux said...
%
% -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
% Hash: SHA1
%
% On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:34:04PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
% AFAICT, be it good or bad overall, there is no way to have gpg *not* read
% the default pubring and secring files; that works for me,
Hello Rocco,
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
the signature could not be verified.
-1) set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from (or your real
localized GnuPG output string)
-2) If
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/23/02 16:55:18 CEST] wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
the signature could not be verified.
-1) set pgp_good_sign=^gpg: Good signature from (or your real
Hello Rocco and ALL,
On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
content-type headers by formail.
This could be that something was
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/22/02 16:46:17 CEST] wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
content-type headers by formail.
This
Rocck --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
...
% This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now
% application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the
% reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens.
Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's
Hi,
* David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
Rocck --
Creative, I must say. ;-)
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
% This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now
% application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is the
% reason, I'll remove those rules and see what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocco, et al --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
% Rocck --
%
% Creative, I must say. ;-)
Whoops. That is clue number one ...
%
% ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% % This
Hi,
* David T-G [04/22/02 22:35:19 CEST] wrote:
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
% * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
% ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
% % This only happens if a mail was former text/plain and is now
% % application/pgp; To find if this - in my case - is
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
I'm interested in what others get to find out wether it's a
general problem or something is wrong with my modified version
of mutt.
nope, happens to me too - only slightly modified version - vvv.nntp and
compressed patch, is all, I
Hi,
* David T-G [04/15/02 14:17:40 CEST] wrote:
I always thought that it
was checking the signature of the message to make sure the message hadn't
been modified, but good signature with could not be verified seems to
contradict that...
I spent some time on testing. In my case, all
Will --
...and then Will Yardley said...
%
% perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users
begin David T-G quotation:
Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless someone (I volunteer)
sets up a temporary mutt-and-gpg-verification-problems list to get to
the bottom of it and keep me in the loop. I certainly want to get it
resolved.
When it is resolved, we want it in
Moin,
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-16 15:30]:
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
version, but I cannot verify David's mail.
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin David T-G quotation:
%
% Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless someone (I volunteer)
% sets up a temporary mutt-and-gpg-verification-problems@ list to get to
% the bottom of it and keep me in the loop. I certainly want
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-16 15:30]:
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
version, but
Hi,
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-16 15:30]:
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
I couldn't verify *any* of the mails I got from you today.
Thorsten
--
Nichts ist schwerer und erfordert mehr
Shawn, et al --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
%
% It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
% version, but I cannot verify David's mail.
%
% Well, it's not unusual to have an occasional unverifiable mail, but for
% it to be
David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
Shawn, et al --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% Well, it's not unusual to have an occasional unverifiable mail, but for
% it to be so consistent for you, it almost has to be somewhere in your
% MTA path, not your MUA, since nobody else is
begin David T-G quotation:
I tried this method, using my editor to write everything from the last
^From_ line down to the bottom of the folder out to a file, but couldn't
get gpg to do anything with it:
Argh. I forgot PGP/MIME. That method I said will only work with inline
sigs.
Score
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin David T-G quotation:
%
% I tried this method, using my editor to write everything from the last
% ^From_ line down to the bottom of the folder out to a file, but couldn't
% get gpg to do anything with it:
%
% Argh. I forgot PGP/MIME.
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Tatge said...
%
% David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
...
%
% I don't know that I'd say that. I cannot verify my own messages in my
% own =mutt-users fcc folder.
...
%[zero] [9:39am] ~ gpg --verify /tmp/m
%gpg: no signed data
%gpg:
David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
% David I know you use several keyrings. If I uncomment all keyring lines
% in my options file I can verify any mail just fine.
% Without those lines the gpg output shows that the sigs are verified, but
% mutt says they can not be verified.
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Tatge said...
%
% David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
% % David I know you use several keyrings. If I uncomment all keyring lines
% % in my options file I can verify any mail just fine.
% % Without those lines the gpg output shows that the sigs are
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-04-16 08:32 (CEST)]
While that sounds like a good idea in general, I don't think it's the
real problem. I get my mail delivered right here and I couldn't verify
the sig on this message, Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
ironically enough.
Signed Mon 15 Apr
Rocco, et al --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
% * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
% Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
% $pgp_verify_command look like?
% gpg --no-verbose --quiet
Thorsten, et al --
...and then Thorsten Haude said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 22:46]:
% * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
% * Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
% Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
%
Hi,
* David T-G [04/15/02 14:06:08 CEST] wrote:
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
% * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
% gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f
%
% Except '--quiet' the same here.
I don't have --quiet and have --output but am otherwise the
Hi,
* Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 02:15]:
Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what
path it's taking to get to you, perhaps there's a broken MTA involved.
Two mails from David, I cannot verify the first, I can verify the
second. I rot13'ed the leading
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 20:19]:
I cannot verify the first
And I cannot verify this one.
Thorsten
--
Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich.
- Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs. 1
msg27201/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 20:19]:
I cannot verify the first
And I cannot verify this one.
perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
--
Will Yardley
input: william @ hq . newdream . net .
Hello Rocco,
On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hey, that's one of mine and guess what... It verifies okay here.
Yes, okay here too now I've corrected effect of my broken deliver.
And It should be also verified by anybody else without my
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0)
for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST)
That's a really old fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including
begin Will Yardley quotation:
And I cannot verify this one.
perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
Is this list no longer for solving Mutt-related problems?
Or is it just that you think no one else will possibly ever have this
problem, and only the people
Hi,
* Shawn McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 22:01]:
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0)
for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST)
That's a really old
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/15/02 21:31:06 CEST] wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
So a message would have to be encoded correctly before handing it over
to an SMTP delivery process and should be deliverable without any
modifications.
BTW you seem
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 13:12:18 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 12:17]:
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 11:28:59 CEST] wrote:
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 05:41]:
I cannot verify your signature. Is it you or is it me?
Must be you. Verified here.
I
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 13:12:18 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 12:17]:
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 11:28:59 CEST] wrote:
* David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 05:41]:
I cannot verify your signature. Is it
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
$pgp_verify_command look like?
gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f
Except '--quiet' the same here.
As I said, it
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 22:46]:
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
$pgp_verify_command look like?
gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 23:06]:
I cannot verify this one. I can still verify my other mails.
Thorsten
--
I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit.
- Mel Brooks
msg27158/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 23:06:03 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 22:46]:
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 15:13]:
Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
$pgp_verify_command look like?
Hello Thorsten,
On Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 1:12:18 PM +0200, Thorsten Haude wrote:
I cannot verify the following IDs (only checked April):
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange: I can verify OK those 2 mails, but can't verify 4 others
(gpg: BAD
At 21:15 +0200 14 Apr 2002, Alain Bench [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in other cases, he has not done it. In the last 3 mails (the
first mail is not QP encoded, so it's normal) some dots *not* beginning
a line were rejected at beginning of next one, because of QP soft
cutting long lines...
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-14 23:35]:
Remember also that I have only problems with
David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck.
Hmm, so let's wait if David (or someone else) has some
pointers or ideas.
David is not the culprit, see my other mail.
I can't verify with
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 00:41]:
I cannot verify (April only):
With neither 1.5.0 nor 1.3.27 (except for S/MIME of course).
Thorsten
--
Alles ist richtig, auch das Gegenteil.
- Kurt Tucholsky
msg27166/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 00:38]:
Add this one to the list I just can't verify. I cannot find any
suspicious dots here.
Thorsten
--
Death to all fanatics!
msg27167/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/15/02 00:53:17 CEST] wrote:
* Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 00:41]:
I cannot verify (April only):
With neither 1.5.0 nor 1.3.27 (except for S/MIME of course).
Exactly. But only checking David's.
--
Alles ist richtig, auch das Gegenteil.
- Kurt
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/14/02 21:15:34 CEST] wrote:
Hello Thorsten,
On Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 1:12:18 PM +0200, Thorsten Haude wrote:
I cannot verify the following IDs (only checked April):
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Strange: I can
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
* Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-04-15 00:38]:
Add this one to the list I just can't verify. I cannot find any
suspicious dots here.
Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what
path it's taking to get to you, perhaps there's
54 matches
Mail list logo
