Re: PGP signature verification
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 it's a bug. The attached patch fixes it. As I said you before, your patch works like a charm: Perhaps could it be incorporated in the next Mutt release? I just noticed it was not yet in 1.4. Thanks again, and bye! Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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 half... 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 signature could NOT be verified and the index s to remain lowercase. Zero *and* a match are necessary for Mutt to announce successfull verification and uppercase the S. But a void $pgp_good_sign= (as by default) is considered to never match anything in the case of verification of traditional sigs, either application/pgp or plain/text. Strangely, it's considered to always match in the PGP/MIME multipart/signed case... So, this is not really a solution. And now? It's even more secure than without. Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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 Debian's adjustment of $pgp_good_sign didn't work, I just changed the source to make mutt print an empty string clearing 'Invoking PGP...'. I was just sick of it. This may be stupid but GnuPG prints some verbose output and I thus don't need mutt to do double check that. If anybody ever finds out what the problem in this special case is, I'd like to get a note... Cheers, Rocco. msg27836/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
solved for :-David T-G -- Re: PGP signature verification
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 signature could NOT be verified and the % index s to remain lowercase. Zero *and* a match are necessary for Mutt % to announce successfull verification and uppercase the S. Thanks to Alain's dedicated digging, we've also figured out the problem for me. I have a number of gpg keyrings, and I want them to be read in the right order -- in particular, I want the main ring (pubring.gpg) to show up first in key listings and such, and I want the catch-all ring to show up last and to catch all keys. I had keyring pubring.gpg secret-keyring secring.gpg keyring pubring.davidtg-old-keys.gpg secret-keyring secring.davidtg-old-keys.gpg ... keyring pubring.mutt.gpg secret-keyring secring.mutt.gpg ... keyring pubring.catch-all-keys.gpg secret-keyring secring.catch-all-keys.gpg in my options file to attempt to ensure that. [I have the secrings listed because I have secret keys in more than just the default ring file.] It turns out that listing pubring.gpg and secring.gpg, in particular the latter, is a no-no; gpg reads those by default no matter what even if you list other keyrings, so when you list them specifically gpg reads them again -- and the duplication of my primary secret key confuses the trust database and gpg throws an exit code of 2. 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, though, because it also seems to read them first (instead of, say, last). The answer for me is simply to comment out those lines and voila! I have verified messages and 'S' in my index display. Now to get back to our regularly scheduled debugging (of *mutt*, I mean). :-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! msg27858/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: solved for :-David T-G -- Re: PGP signature verification
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, though, because % it also seems to read them first (instead of, say, last). The answer for % me is simply to comment out those lines and voila! I have verified % messages and 'S' in my index display. % % I haven't yet upgraded to 1.0.7, so I suppose it is possible that Nor have I, though I probably oughta. % the option was removed, but '--no-default-keyring' does what you want % in GnuPG 1.0.6. Hmmm... Not for me, it seems: [zero] [1:02pm] ~ which gpg /usr/local/bin/gpg [zero] [1:03pm] ~ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 1.0.6 Copyright (C) 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. Home: ~/.gnupg Supported algorithms: Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, RIJNDAEL, RIJNDAEL192, RIJNDAEL256, TWOFISH Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA, ELG Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160 [zero] [1:03pm] ~ gpg --options /dev/null --no-default-keyring --list-keys gpg: Warning: using insecure memory! /home/davidtg/.gnupg/pubring.gpg ... Thanks, though... Maybe it's been *added* in 1.0.7 :-) :-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! msg27859/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 point 1 doesn't help, set this wrapper script: 8 /tmp/gpg-test-wrapper 8 #!/bin/sh gpg $* ret=$? echo GPG RETURN VALUE = $ret 2 # echo gpg: Good signature from somebody 2 exit $ret 8 8 --- 8 8 Then type in shell: chmod 755 /tmp/gpg-test-wrapper In gpg.rc modify $pgp_decode_command and $pgp_verify_command to replace gpg by the wrapper, not touching the parameters. The first command is used to verify traditional sigs, the second for PGP/MIME sigs only. Something as: set pgp_decode_command=/tmp/gpg-test-wrapper %?p?--passphrase-fd 0? --no-verbose --quiet --batch --output - %f set pgp_verify_command=/tmp/gpg-test-wrapper --no-verbose --quiet --batch --output - --verify %s %f Then verify a problem mail, and send me a screen dump. Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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 localized GnuPG output string) That seems to work. According to the manual, gpg has to return an exit value of non zero making mutt reporting a bad signature allthough it's good. So, this is not really a solution. Cheers, Rocco. msg27566/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 modified by proc/formail that is necessary to PGP verify... I propose something: You, David, Thorsten, and anybody else suffering from the same problem, copy one or two of the unverifiable mails to a temporary mailbox, zip it, and send to me privately the gz. If I find something different from the same mails I have in my mutt-users archive, we will know that's something bad in your delivery process. If I find nothing different, and can verify them, this will mean bad PGP config. I'll summarize the list. David: You can include one of your own mails from your record box. Just make clear what is what. Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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 could be that something was modified by proc/formail that is
necessary to PGP verify... I propose something:
My procmail rules look like:
,[ ~/.procmailrc ]-
| :0:
| * !^Content-Type: message/
| * !^Content-Type: multipart/
| * !^Content-Type: application/pgp
| {
| :0 fBw
| * ^-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
| * ^-END PGP MESSAGE-
| | formail -i Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt;
| [...]
| }
`-
As you see, only the body is checked and the header is
modified. I answered David's mail because I think to have the
reason for the following behaviour:
1) GnuPG says the signature is good but
2) Mutt says it could not be verified
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.
Cheers, Rocco.
msg27528/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 see if mutt says it's verified. Alain, thanks for your digging, and I will get out a couple of candidates to you today. % % Cheers, Rocco. 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! msg27529/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 happens. Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's verified. Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. To make my point once more: I use procmail to rewrite a content type of text/plain of pgp signed messages to make mutt recognize it. When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says the signature could not be verified. This seems to be case if the content type was rewritten. If it is left untouched, mutt always says it was okay. In my archive every mail is untouched. So I looked at one of them (with content type text/plain) and used check-traditional- pgp. Result: gpg suceeds, mutt fails. I can't explain this one. If there isn't much interest in the case I'll just ignore mutt's messages and only rely on gpg. Cheers, Rocco. msg27535/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
-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 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 see if mutt says it's % verified. % % Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is % a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. ... and here's clue number two. Must have been way too early for me. Sorry! So *now* what do you get? TIA^^2 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! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8xHQHGb7uCXufRwARArxkAJ0do0jvBDm3WzfRdRSBctoNScMZLQCeODzS QMT5NGUzvn3EMzudUKC2ieI= =1SF+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PGP signature verification
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 the % % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. % % Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's % verified. % % Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is % a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. ... and here's clue number two. Must have been way too early for me. Sorry! So *now* what do you get? GnuPG verifies it while mutt doesn't. As expected. So, I this is what I have so far: My mutt has problems with traditional pgp signatures created by the sender. Adjusting the content/type doesn't help, too. 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. Cheers, Rocco. msg27541/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 think... -- Dan Boger [EMAIL PROTECTED] msg27543/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 signatures GPG can sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten content-type headers by formail. The rules for procmail are given in the PGP-Notes.txt distributed with mutt. Allthough this is called the old way of verification, I think it shouldn't stop working. Cheers, Rocco. msg27484/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 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. % % -- % Will Yardley % input: william @ hq . newdream . net . :-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! msg27231/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 the archives, too. Otherwise that temporary list is gonna need permanent archives. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27234/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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. 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. This might be a good idea. Thorsten -- It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. - Voltaire msg27238/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 to get it % resolved. % % When it is resolved, we want it in the archives, too. Otherwise that % temporary list is gonna need permanent archives. I agree that it should stay here. I agree that the discussion as well as the end fix are important. If I'm one of a handful, though, then I at least don't want it to die before it's solved -- though cutting it down to a couple of people who want to know why but don't have the time or expertise to do the digging certainly won't get us much closer. Were it to be moved off-list, I'd recommend a summary post back to mutt-users when it's all done. % % % -- % Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: % http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it % AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong :-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! msg27239/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 I cannot verify David's mail. 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 seeing it with this frequency. ALMOST has. It could be Mutt, but I don't think anybody else is going to find anything Mutt if they haven't yet. Try making a copy of your mail spool, and then edit that copy to remove everything but one of the messages you can't verify, then pump that message through gpg and see what happens. If it still doesn't verify, it's not Mutt. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27240/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 Charakter, als sich in offenem Gegensatz zu seiner Zeit zu befinden und zu sagen: Nein! - Kurt Tucholsky msg27241/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 so consistent for you, it almost has to be somewhere in your % MTA path, not your MUA, since nobody else is seeing it with this % frequency. I don't know that I'd say that. I cannot verify my own messages in my own =mutt-users fcc folder. % ... % everything but one of the messages you can't verify, then pump that % message through gpg and see what happens. If it still doesn't verify, % it's not Mutt. I had previously tried saving the body and the signature of a given message and found that the signature was valid but not verified. 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: [zero] [9:39am] ~ cat /tmp/m | gpg --verify gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error [zero] [9:39am] ~ gpg --verify /tmp/m gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error [zero] [9:39am] ~ gpg --verify /tmp/m gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error What did you mean? % % -- % Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: % http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it % AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong TIA 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! msg27242/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 seeing it with this % frequency. I don't know that I'd say that. I cannot verify my own messages in my own =mutt-users fcc folder. % everything but one of the messages you can't verify, then pump that % message through gpg and see what happens. If it still doesn't verify, % it's not Mutt. I had previously tried saving the body and the signature of a given message and found that the signature was valid but not verified. 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: [zero] [9:39am] ~ cat /tmp/m | gpg --verify gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error [zero] [9:39am] ~ gpg --verify /tmp/m gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error [zero] [9:39am] ~ gpg --verify /tmp/m gpg: no signed data gpg: can't hash datafile: file open error If those are pgp/mine it's sure that gpg can't verify anything. 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 verfied. HTH, Michael -- Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. (By Stephan Zielinski) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key msg27244/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 one for The Old Way. Sorry for the brainfart. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27245/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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. That method I said will only work with inline % sigs. A... % % Score one for The Old Way. Sorry for the brainfart. *grin* and no problem. That explains why I was confused, though! % % % -- % Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: % http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it % AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong :-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! msg27246/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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: can't hash datafile: file open error % % If those are pgp/mine it's sure that gpg can't verify anything. Now I get what Shawn was doing. Thanks. % David I know you use several keyrings. If I uncomment all keyring lines % in my options file I can verify any mail just fine. Interesting... I have all of my keyring files uncommented and usable in my gpg options file. Who wouldn't, though? I even just now thought of folder-hooks and trying to point mutt to the right keyring, but that's only for importing. Besides, this is my own key. Phooey. % Without those lines the gpg output shows that the sigs are verified, but % mutt says they can not be verfied. I wonder why gpg can find the key to check the sig at all... If you don't have the ring listed, thenn where is gpg finding it? % % HTH, Thanks HAND % % Michael % -- % Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. % (By Stephan Zielinski) % % PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key :-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! msg27248/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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. Interesting... The interesting part is that the gpg output is identical whether mutt says verified or not. So this IS a mutt issue. I wonder why gpg can find the key to check the sig at all... If you don't have the ring listed, then where is gpg finding it? It fetches it from a keyserver. HTH, Michael -- The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash, it displays a dialog box and lets you press 'OK' first. (Arno Schaefer's .sig) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: PGP signature verification
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 verified, but % % mutt says they can not be verified. % % Interesting... % % The interesting part is that the gpg output is identical whether mutt % says verified or not. So this IS a mutt issue. Ahhh... Yes, indeed. % % I wonder why gpg can find the key to check the sig at all... If you % don't have the ring listed, then where is gpg finding it? % % It fetches it from a keyserver. Oh, I get it. Sorry :-) % % HTH, % % Michael Thanks! :-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! msg27266/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
* 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 2002 22:58:13 CEST w DSA key ID 4065A1DA Verified ok: Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using: This is fetchmail release 5.3.3+NTLM+SDPS+NLS gpg (GnuPG) 1.0.1 Updating... It does check with 1.0.6 also. Time to upgrade fetchmail I think, as this seems quite old ;) -- Rafael C. Gawenda, rgawenda/at/pobox/dot/com 2:348/610@fidonet; GnuPG key: 0x5C4839A5; Registered LiNUX User #93375 If the brain was so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we could not understand it (Lyall Watson) msg27268/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 --batch -o - --verify %s %f % % Except '--quiet' the same here. I don't have --quiet and have --output but am otherwise the same, too. % % As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. % % David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something % to do with it? I don't know. I was just thinking of escaped ^From_ lines, which have caused bad signatures on this list before. I didn't mean to throw out a red herring :-) 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! msg27185/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 % $pgp_verify_command look like? % gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f % Except '--quiet' the same here. % I doubt that this is the reason. % % As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. % David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something % to do with it? I don't know. % I couldn't find anything. Remember also that I have only problems with % David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck. Heh :-) I'm glad to see that others have problems elsewhere now, too! I've done some digging and still don't see the problem, though the leading dots issue is interesting. For instance, the reply I just sent to Rocco went out just fine and I have a copy in my =mutt-users fcc file. When I read that message, it says good signature but could not be verified. Digging into the message in an editor, I see leading dots properly escaped. Using mutt to save the body and signature separately and then running $pgp_verify_command by hand on the pieces gives me, amazingly enough, a bad signature. I get the same verification error when I run the stock mutt-1.3.28. Just what does the verification do, anyway? What is mutt expecting from gpg, and what are the steps that gpg is taking? 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... HTH TIA 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! msg27186/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 same, too. --output and -o are equal. Cheers, Rocco. msg27187/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 Froms, just to be sure. - - - Schnipp - - - Sebz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 14 17:00:27 2002 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eumel.yoo.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id 00DD81262F for yooden@localhost; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST) Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:58:17 +0200 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) Received: from [194.70.126.10] (helo=ns.gbnet.net) by mxng01.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16wlSI-0007Sx-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:58:14 +0200 Received: (qmail 6189 invoked by uid 610); 14 Apr 2002 14:55:48 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 6179 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2002 14:55:43 - Received: from unknown (HELO zero.sector13.org) (199.105.121.241) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 14:55:43 - Received: (qmail 29149 invoked by uid 2003); 14 Apr 2002 14:54:58 - Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:54:58 -0500 From: David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mutt Users' List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] +20020413110926.A2737@Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] +[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=TD8GDToEDw0WLGOL Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 62 - - - Schnapp - - - - - - Schnipp - - - Sebz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 11 17:55:11 2002 Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eumel.yoo.net (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.2 (i386)) with ESMTP id E06F41262C for yooden@localhost; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:49:18 +0200 Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.141] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0) for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [194.70.126.10] (helo=ns.gbnet.net) by mxng03.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 16vgdn-00083b-00 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:37:39 +0200 Received: (qmail 17735 invoked by uid 610); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:54 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 17712 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Received: from unknown (HELO zero.sector13.org) (199.105.121.241) by ns.gbnet.net with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Received: (qmail 22449 invoked by uid 2003); 11 Apr 2002 15:35:46 - Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:35:46 -0500 From: David T-G [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mutt Users' List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Jun Sun [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Don't reply to me does not work? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol=application/pgp-signature; boundary=oOINc+Z9LTvKzseX Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Status: RO Content-Length: 1235 Lines: 63 - - - Schnapp - - - Thorsten -- Every person shall have the right freely to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. - Grundgesetz, Article 5, Sec. 1 msg27200/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 .
Re: PGP signature verification
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 problem. not removing the dot added in this case by SMTP. But GPG signes the message body. So, if my postfix would remove the leading dots the content would be changed, right? Well no. SMTP works like that. Each sender prepends a dot to lines beginning by a dot, each receiver removes it. That's true for POP3 and IMAP too: the server sends adding dots, fetchmail (or witchever client) receives and removes them. It's designed like this to be transparent, and in fact it is, in most cases... unless someone uses bad old software, like me. :-( That's done at the transfer protocol level, so PGP or Mutt are not involved, nor should be impacted, at least when all works well. Even Mutt's feature to encode first dot when quoted-unreadabling is just to be on the safe side: it should theorically not be necessary for receiving unmodified mails, in a perfect world. All this dot thing is because these protocols use a dot single on it's line to mark end of text. 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 to be nearly the only one here to use PGP/MIME sigs, and to *not* use QP encoding: why? I'll take some time tomorrow to try that with all messages which don't verify correctly. Not necessary: I've given the only 4 touched ID's. If I follow correctly, the unverifiable you see are not the same ones... But what is really weird that mails which cannot be verified differ from person to person. This shows there is more than one only problem... :-( Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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 problems with parsing usernames with spaces in them. Try upgrading it, and see if the problem persists. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27204/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 he'd communicate with off-list could possibly solve it? -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27205/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including problems with parsing usernames with spaces in them. Try upgrading it, and see if the problem persists. Done. Thanks so far. Thorsten -- The fact that windows is one of the most popular ways to operate a computer means that evolution has made a general fuckup and our race is doomed. msg27206/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 to be nearly the only one here to use PGP/MIME sigs, and to *not* use QP encoding: why? Well some are encoded QP. I know some basics about encryption, so I wonder why I would want to change that? I let mutt decide which character encoding to use. Cheers, Rocco. msg27209/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
PGP signature verification (was: Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem)
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 cannot verify the following IDs (only checked April): Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your $pgp_verify_command look like? Cheers, Rocco. msg27142/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification (was: Re: Re: Outlook pst import: What file format should I use?: Formail problem)
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 you or is it me? Must be you. Verified here. I cannot verify the following IDs (only checked April): Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your $pgp_verify_command look like? gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. I have some other random problems (which I reported here) since I switched to 1.5.0, so maybe that's the reason? Thorsten -- Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich. - Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs. 1 msg27151/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 works on all messages except four of Davids. David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something to do with it? I don't know. I have some other random problems (which I reported here) since I switched to 1.5.0, so maybe that's the reason? Do you still have an older version of mutt you can view the affected mails with? Didn't David mention he can't verify his own, too? I don't think that switching to 1.5.0 is the reason since it works (with mbox) here. Cheers, Rocco. msg27154/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 Except '--quiet' the same here. I doubt that this is the reason. As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something to do with it? I don't know. I couldn't find anything. Remember also that I have only problems with David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck. I have some other random problems (which I reported here) since I switched to 1.5.0, so maybe that's the reason? Do you still have an older version of mutt you can view the affected mails with? Didn't David mention he can't verify his own, too? I have the same error with an 'old' version: - - - Schnipp - - - Mutt 1.3.27i (2002-01-22) Copyright (C) 1996-2001 Michael R. Elkins and others. Mutt comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `mutt -vv'. Mutt is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions; type `mutt -vv' for details. System: Linux 2.4.4-4GB (i686) [using ncurses 5.2] Einstellungen bei der Compilierung: -DOMAIN -DEBUG -HOMESPOOL -USE_SETGID +USE_DOTLOCK -DL_STANDALONE +USE_FCNTL -USE_FLOCK -USE_POP -USE_IMAP -USE_GSS -USE_SSL -USE_SASL +HAVE_REGCOMP -USE_GNU_REGEX +HAVE_COLOR +HAVE_START_COLOR +HAVE_TYPEAHEAD +HAVE_BKGDSET +HAVE_CURS_SET +HAVE_META +HAVE_RESIZETERM +HAVE_PGP -BUFFY_SIZE -EXACT_ADDRESS -SUN_ATTACHMENT +ENABLE_NLS -LOCALES_HACK +HAVE_WC_FUNCS +HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET ++HAVE_LANGINFO_YESEXPR +HAVE_ICONV -ICONV_NONTRANS +HAVE_GETSID -HAVE_GETADDRINFO ISPELL=/usr/bin/ispell SENDMAIL=/usr/sbin/sendmail MAILPATH=/var/mail PKGDATADIR=/usr/share/mutt SYSCONFDIR=/usr/etc EXECSHELL=/bin/sh -MIXMASTER Um die Entwickler zu kontaktieren, schicken Sie bitte eine Nachricht (in englisch) an [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Um einen Bug zu melden, verwenden Sie bitte das Programm flea(1). - - - Schnapp - - - Still, a *lot* got broken when I switched to 1.5.0. Thorsten -- Wasn't the storming of the Bastille an act of terrorism? Probably. Now it's a holiday. - umarsyed msg27155/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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
Re: PGP signature verification
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? gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f Except '--quiet' the same here. I doubt that this is the reason. Surely not. Just some the pointer that this is not the cause. 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. I have the same error with an 'old' version: - - - Schnipp - - - Mutt 1.3.27i (2002-01-22) Strange, I may have overlooked something which I noticed when checking with an 'old' 1.3.28. So I went through my private archives with 1.3.28 and 1.5.0 (04/2002 only). I can't verify with 1.3.28 _and_ 1.5.0: + [EMAIL PROTECTED] + [EMAIL PROTECTED] The two messages you former mentioned verify here. You spoke about 4 mails including these two? Cheers, Rocco. msg27159/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
PGP signature verification (was: Outlook pst import: What file formatshould I use?: Formail problem)
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 signature from ...) on the 325 PGP signed mails from April. Their IDs are: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note the last one is by David too. Don't know what's happening? ...taking more time to study the 4 mails... Last minute before sending: Well, I found what's happening, at least for my 4 bad sigs. The 4 mails have, in their raw quoted-printable encoded form, lines beginning by dots. And I use a #@@# broken deliver process not removing the dot added in this case by SMTP. So I have too many dots in my mailbox, GnuPG considers these mails changed, and moans. Once these dots removed with editor, the 4 messages verify OK. What's strange is that Mutt's smart QP encoding process should have encoded the first dot of a line as =2E while sending, to avoid this exact problem... And in fact he has done it, in one case: the first line of David's mail is raw =2E..and then Rob Reid said... (3 dots at the beginning, with the 1st encoded). 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... And Mutt didn't notice it should have encoded it. I guess it's a bug. Or an only half working feature... ;-) Sample taken from last ID (I quoted with | ): | % For many people that would be tricky but fortunately for you it's just l. unencoded text was longer than the QP 76 chars limit, so before sending Mutt's QP encoder inserted a soft line break =\n as: | % For many people that would be tricky but fortunately for you it's just l= | . resulting in a misplaced dot. It should have better done so: | % For many people that would be tricky but fortunately for you it's just l= | =2E or even better in this case, but difficult to generalize, it could have decided to insert it's line cut one char before: | % For many people that would be tricky but fortunately for you it's just = | l. Bye!Alain.
Re: PGP signature verification
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... And Mutt didn't notice it should have encoded it.
I guess it's a bug. Or an only half working feature... ;-)
Yeah, I'd say it's a bug. The attached patch fixes it.
or even better in this case, but difficult to generalize, it could
have decided to insert it's line cut one char before:
| % For many people that would be tricky but fortunately for you it's just =
| l.
I haven't done that for my patch, although it wouldn't be all that
difficult to do it would require some larger changes to the relevant
code. I don't think it's worth it just to save a couple bytes in a
situation that should be fairly uncommon.
--
Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.schrab.com/aaron/
I dunno, I dream in Perl sometimes... --Larry Wall
--- sendlib.c.dist Sun Apr 14 17:24:22 2002
+++ sendlib.c Sun Apr 14 17:25:20 2002
@@ -185,8 +185,16 @@
line[linelen] = 0;
fputs (line, fout);
fputc ('\n', fout);
-line[0] = savechar;
-linelen = 1;
+ if (savechar == '.')
+ {
+ strfcpy (line, =2E, sizeof (line));
+ linelen = 3;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ line[0] = savechar;
+ linelen = 1;
+ }
}
}
msg27164/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 1.3.28 _and_ 1.5.0: + [EMAIL PROTECTED] + [EMAIL PROTECTED] The two messages you former mentioned verify here. You spoke about 4 mails including these two? I cannot verify (April only): - All S/MIME mails for I'm sure entirely different reasons - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] because I just can't. Sample output: - - - Schnipp - - - [-- PGP output follows (current time: Mon 15 Apr 2002 00:38:24 CEST) --] gpg: Warnung: Sensible Daten könnten auf Platte ausgelagert werden. gpg: Unterschrift vom Son 14 Apr 2002 23:06:03 CEST, DSA Schlüssel ID 4065A1DA gpg: FALSCHE Unterschrift von Thorsten Haude [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --] - - - Schnapp - - - These seem to be the conspicuous ones. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] because I can't find a key. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] because the last line of GPG's output is empty. GPG oks these, Mutt doesn't. Thorsten -- Die Zensur ist das lebendige Geständnis der Großen, daß sie nur verdummte Sklaven aber keine freien Völker regieren können. - Johann Nepomuk Nestroy msg27165/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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
Re: PGP signature verification
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
Re: PGP signature verification
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 Tucholsky Maybe use signatures in English in an English list? Cheers, Rocco. msg27169/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 verify OK those 2 mails, but can't verify 4 others (gpg: BAD signature from ...) on the 325 PGP signed mails from April. Their IDs are: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, that's one of mine and guess what... It verifies okay here. Last minute before sending: Well, I found what's happening, at least for my 4 bad sigs. The 4 mails have, in their raw quoted-printable encoded form, lines beginning by dots. And I use a #@@# broken deliver process not removing the dot added in this case by SMTP. But GPG signes the message body. So, if my postfix would remove the leading dots the content would be changed, right? That's how I understand PGP/GPG signatures. 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. Once these dots removed with editor, the 4 messages verify OK. I'll take some time tomorrow to try that with all messages which don't verify correctly. But what is really weird that mails which cannot be verified differ from person to person. Cheers, Rocco. msg27170/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PGP signature verification
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 a broken MTA involved. -- Shawn McMahon| McMahon's Laws of Linux support: http://www.eiv.com | 1) There's more than one way to do it AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | 2) Somebody thinks your way is wrong msg27173/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
