not recognizing PGP signatures in encrypted+signed messages
If I send myself a signed message, Mutt says PGP signature successfully verified., which is very nice. But if I send a signed and encrypted message, it says PGP signature could NOT be verified., which is not so good. Anybody have an idea why? This is happening on a system with Mutt 1.4i and gpg 1.0.7. Thanks. -Guy
Re: pgp signatures
Darrin -- ...and then Darrin Mison said... % [LookOut! problem description snipped] % % know a way to correct this apart from surgically removing outlook ;-) Well, that's definitely the right way, but you might look into pgp_create_traditional to do in-line signatures. There was also an Outhouse-specific patch posted here recently which might be of use; check the archives. % % -- % Darrin Mison % -- % Life is a series of rude awakenings. % -- R.V. Winkle :-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.bigfoot.com/~davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! The "new millennium" starts at the beginning of 2001. There was no year 0. PGP signature
pgp signatures
People are complaining to me that my pgp signatures show up as unidentified attachments which freaks them out (MS users). Is there a way to force the signature to identify itself as being what it is? I also know a few outlook users which say that my signed messages turn up as a blank message with two attachments, one the text message and the other the unidentified signature. Anyone know a way to correct this apart from surgically removing outlook ;-) -- Darrin Mison -- Life is a series of rude awakenings. -- R.V. Winkle PGP signature
mutt and pgp signatures
I've recently started to use GnuPG 1.0.1 with mutt 1.2i. I notice a small problem: 1. If I receive a message with a PGP signature attached, and view it with mutt, gpg claims that it's a bad signature, even if the signature is good, in certain circumstances. In particular, this happens if the incoming message has the double-dash-space signature in the message body, eg: Hi Anand blah blah blah. -- Friend If a message is sent to me without the double-dash signature, the pgp signature verification succeeds. More interestingly, if the space after the double-dash is removed, the signature verification ALSO SUCCEEDS. Now I know that the convention for signatures is '-- \n', but that space somehow seems to be breaking gpg's ability to verify PGP signatures. Anyone have any idea why this might be so? -- Anand
Re: mutt and pgp signatures
Anand Buddhdev [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: I've recently started to use GnuPG 1.0.1 with mutt 1.2i. I notice a small problem: 1. If I receive a message with a PGP signature attached, and view it with mutt, gpg claims that it's a bad signature, even if the signature is good, in certain circumstances. In particular, this happens if the incoming message has the double-dash-space signature in the message body, eg: Hi Anand blah blah blah. -- Friend If a message is sent to me without the double-dash signature, the pgp signature verification succeeds. More interestingly, if the space after the double-dash is removed, the signature verification ALSO SUCCEEDS. Now I know that the convention for signatures is '-- \n', but that space somehow seems to be breaking gpg's ability to verify PGP signatures. Anyone have any idea why this might be so? Someone else will know the details better than I do, but it has to do with pgp/gpg matching the '-- ' as something it isn't. This is the purpose of things like mutt's $pgp_strict_enc variable: ### pgp_strict_enc ### Type: boolean ### Default: set ### If set, Mutt will automatically encode PGP/MIME signed messages as ### quoted-printable. Please note that unsetting this variable may lead to ### problems with non-verifyable PGP signatures, so only change this if you ### know what you are doing. Of course, this has to be handled on the sender's end, so you may need to tell your friends to fix their clients to handle this correctly. -- Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/ -+-+-- the crises posed a question / just beneath the skin the virtue in my veins replied / that quitters never win PGP signature
PGP signatures
PGP/GPG signatures are rampanton this list, and I am glad to see them out there. One request: please upload your public keys to a keyserver. It does not take long. The reason I ask this is because some folks may have their mutt set up to fetch your key from a keyserver. If it's there, they get authentication quickly. If it isn't there, they get to wait while the keyserver conducts a fruitless search. -- -- C^2 No windows were crashed in the making of this email. Looking for fine software and/or web pages? http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley PGP signature
Re: pgp signatures
Rejo dixit: ++ 12.03.1999, 17:45:14 (+0100) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I most times see pgp signed messages as an attachment in mutt, though others I see the signatures in the body of the messages. Why and how's this difference? How can one and another been achieved? This is because the PGP signature is a part of the MIME message [1]. Don't know how to explain MIME, but it is, iirc, a way to add the attachments to an email. MIME messages have always these special MIME headers telling the mailer where which part is starting. The message text is one of these parts (text/plain i think) and the signature is another part (pgp/application i guess). If you would like to have it the normal way round you can do it by hand. Write the message, sign it manually and insert this signed text into the message you're composing. I don't know if what you suggest would fiddle with the signature and then produce a bad sig. Is there no other way to choose between an attached signature and a text signed message with mutt? Please, could anyone send to me the variables that need to be added in ~/.muttrc for mutt-i to work with pgp versions 2.6.3i and 5.0i, and with gpg altogether? (or, a muttrc file with all of them) TIA Horacio.
Re: pgp signatures
++ 13.03.1999, 14:09:06 (+0100) = [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't know if what you suggest would fiddle with the signature and then produce a bad sig. Is there no other way to choose between an attached signature and a text signed message with mutt? No, it wouldn't produce a bad signature. You can sign any text you want. You'll have to give 'pgp -sa file' command (when using 2.6.3) and it'll sign this file. You can insert this file in the message you want to sent and there will no problems [1]. Anyone with pgp can check this signature. But again, for creating non-MIME messages with a signed body (and therefor having the signature and the signed text in one part) you'll have to do it yourself manually... Someone correct me if i'm wrong. I haven't been using Mutt for a long time... -Rejo. [1] The signature will be correct. However, if the reciepent is using Mutt as well, Mutt will not recognize this signature unless (s)he is using a procmail filter to add the missing headers (the headers MIME uses to tell that the next part is signed). -- = SISTER RAY [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] / REJO [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] = PGP: DSS B20D35F8, RSA FAE40065; finger [EMAIL PROTECTED], keyservers = Subscribe to Live Local, more info at http://mediaport.org/~sister
Re: pgp signatures
At 8:09 AM EST on March 13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent off: Please, could anyone send to me the variables that need to be added in ~/.muttrc for mutt-i to work with pgp versions 2.6.3i and 5.0i, and with gpg altogether? (or, a muttrc file with all of them) I recommend you look at Roland Rosenfeld's mutt key bindings at http://www.rhein.de/~roland/mutt/keybind It has bindings to easily switch between PGP 2, 5, and GPG. -- (Theodore) Sturgeon's Law: Sure, ninety percent of science fiction is crud. That's because ninety percent of everything is crud. Robert I. Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/ PGP Key: http://astro.utoronto.ca/~reid/pgp.html
pgp signatures
Hi, I most times see pgp signed messages as an attachment in mutt, though others I see the signatures in the body of the messages. Why and how's this difference? How can one and another been achieved? Also, could anyone send to me the variables that need to be added for mutt-i to work with pgp versions 2.6.3i and 5.0i, and with gpg altogether? TIA Horacio
Re: PGP signatures working correctly?
On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 10:19:45AM +0100, Rejo wrote: Hello, I'm using Mutt with support for PGP. As i'm subbed to several lists i sometimes see a posting with a signature of my own. Mutt tells me there was a 'Good signature', but also says 'This signature applies to another message'. What does imply this last line? It's just PGP5 being weird. (The technical reason is because it does apply to another message: one 'message' is the body of the mail itself, the signature is a second 'message', or at least as PGP5 sees them.) Ignore it or use GPG. Also, when vieuwing the signature block myself, the first line after the opening '--- BEGIN...' says which version i'm using. The next line says 'MessageID: nnn' with nnn as a number which is not the same as the message id in the header (which is very logic as this message-id in the header gets added later by Sendmail). The number looks encrypted as well, as there are no @'s or domainname in it. That's normal, too. -- Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain." Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
