Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

for S/MIME in the first place. But it's not urgent any more. Kevin J. McCarthy: Also, is there a way to shorten the time that SMIME signature verification needs before timing out? 25 seconds sounds much too long to me. I don't know what it's doing that takes so long to time out, and have no idea how

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

Done, thanks: https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/-/issues/450 Kevin J. McCarthy: Yes, please go ahead. I don't have a current timeline for starting master development again, but when I do, it will be good to have the request there. -- ilf If you upload your address book to "the cloud", I

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

Do you think I should file a feature request for this in the tracker? Kevin J. McCarthy: There seem to be quite a few users with this issue. Do you think a boolean option like "crypt_verify_smime" that explicitly works even with GPGME would be feasible? From a user POV, it sure sounds logical

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

(which should be quadoptions). It certainly wouldn't go in a stable release. Also, is there a way to shorten the time that SMIME signature verification needs before timing out? 25 seconds sounds much too long to me. I don't know what it's doing that takes so long to time out, and have no idea how

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

em to be quite a few users with this issue. Do you think a boolean option like "crypt_verify_smime" that explicitly works even with GPGME would be feasible? From a user POV, it sure sounds logical and useful. Also, is there a way to shorten the time that SMIME signature verificati

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

fy_command="" (along with smime_verify_opaque_command and smime_decrypt_command). But this does not work. According to muttrc(5) the default value for these three options is already "", and I am not setting them anywhere. That option only works when $crypt_use_gpgme is unset. So

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

Hi I would also like to disable the S/MIME signature check. I have no use for it. And "Invoking S/MIME..." takes 25 seconds before failing with "S/MIME signature could NOT be verified." I do use OpenPGP. So disabling "crypt_use_gpgme" is not an opt

Re: [ext] Re: Display info about S/MIME signature

IIUC, you would like to see which certificates have been used while reading the mail. Sometime I also need such extra info, and I was struggling to get the info. So I dove again a bit into it. On 13Oct22 08:26+0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Mutt-users wrote: > > gpgsm --list-keys

Re: [ext] Re: Display info about S/MIME signature

* ckeader via Mutt-users : > gpgsm --list-keys ralf.hildebra...@charite.de > > would give you all information about the key, including ID (which is the > last part of the fingerprint), serial etc. Yeah, that's awesome. Exactly what I need! -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT |

Re: [ext] Re: Display info about S/MIME signature

check the config options `crypt_verify_sig`, and > > `smime_verify_command`, `smime_verify_opaque_command` > > I'll have a look at those. > > > When receiving a smime signed mail, mutt tells me if the signature is > > valid or not. > > Well yes, but in some ca

Re: [ext] Re: Display info about S/MIME signature

ig options `crypt_verify_sig`, and > `smime_verify_command`, `smime_verify_opaque_command` I'll have a look at those. > When receiving a smime signed mail, mutt tells me if the signature is > valid or not. Well yes, but in some cases (please don't ask) my moron users have more than one valid certifcate

Re: Display info about S/MIME signature

On 12Oct22 16:12+0200, Ralf Hildebrandt via Mutt-users wrote: > when receiving an S/MIME signed mail, how can I extract information > about the certificate / public key that was sent along with the > signature? Try ^K, which is the default keybind for `extract-keys`. This command

Display info about S/MIME signature

Hi! when receiving an S/MIME signed mail, how can I extract information about the certificate / public key that was sent along with the signature? -- Ralf Hildebrandt Geschäftsbereich IT | Abteilung Netzwerk Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30

Re: Coloring signature information

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 08:05:51PM +0100, Chris Narkiewicz via Mutt-users wrote: On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 06:56:51PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: Those are included in the 'attachment' color object. I tried color attachment bg fg but it colors '[-- Begin signature information --]' string

Re: Coloring signature information

On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 06:56:51PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > [-- Begin signature information --] > > Good signature from: Kevin J. McCarthy > >created: Sun Jun 5 20:45:27 2022 > > [-- End signature information --] > > > > Is there

Re: Coloring signature information

On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 10:32:34PM +0100, Chris Narkiewicz via Mutt-users wrote: When receiving email with GPG signature, mutt puts a status at the top of the message pager: [-- Begin signature information --] Good signature from: Kevin J. McCarthy created: Sun Jun 5 20:45:27 2022

Coloring signature information

When receiving email with GPG signature, mutt puts a status at the top of the message pager: [-- Begin signature information --] Good signature from: Kevin J. McCarthy created: Sun Jun 5 20:45:27 2022 [-- End signature information --] Is there a way to set the color of this block

Re: signature and alternates

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:52:44PM +0100, Steve Karmeinsky wrote: The only thing not working properly is setting the signature back to normal after replying to an alternate. I didn't see how you overrode the signature, so I can only guess it's something like: reply-hook .&quo

signature and alternates

This is my main email, but I have several alternates set-up. In .muttrc I have set signature=~/.signature set realname = "Steve Karmeinsky" set from = "st...@gbnet.net" my_hdr X-Organisation: NetTek Ltd I also have send-hook . 'unmy_hdr From:' send-hook . 'unmy_hdr X-Orga

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

tarball that looks > > like it should be easily adaptable to do what I need. I'm not a Python fan, > > so I may eventually convert it to Perl, but it will get me started. > > It works!! Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. > > On top of the signature nit-pi

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

a Python fan, > so I may eventually convert it to Perl, but it will get me started. It works!! Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. On top of the signature nit-picking my supervisors insist on top-posting with no trimming when replying to e-mails. Now I have one of them complaining that

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

an muttrc) that > converts the message to proper HTML markup (including ) and includes > the signature snippet. If the signature contains image data, it is > possible to inline the image data into the HTML by using the > src=data:image/jpeg;base64 attribute of the tag. This saves you from >

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

On Mon, 4 May 2020, at 22:54, Kevin Monceaux wrote: > My employer is trying to force me to downgrade to Outlook. One of the > powers that be came up with the brilliant idea of having a standard company > signature, with logo, specific font requirements, etc. Is there any way to

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

Kevin Monceaux wrote: > Mutt Fans, > > My employer is trying to force me to downgrade to Outlook. One of the > powers that be came up with the brilliant idea of having a standard company > signature, with logo, specific font requirements, etc. Is there any way to > includ

Re: Inconvenient Signature Requirements

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 03:54:09PM -0500, Kevin Monceaux wrote: > My employer is trying to force me to downgrade to Outlook. One of the > powers that be came up with the brilliant idea of having a standard > company signature, with logo, specific font requirements, etc. Is > t

Inconvenient Signature Requirements

Mutt Fans, My employer is trying to force me to downgrade to Outlook. One of the powers that be came up with the brilliant idea of having a standard company signature, with logo, specific font requirements, etc. Is there any way to include such a signature in e-mails sent from mutt? Sadly, I

usage of PK7SC file/signature smime.p7s

://www.unixarea.de/key.pub "Glaube wenig, hinterfrage alles, denke selbst: Wie man Manipulationen durchschaut" "Believe little, scrutinise all, think by your own: How see through manipulations" ISBN-10: 386489218X signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: throw away signature in reply

On Sep 16, 2018 at 20:11:32, Michael Tatge wrote: > * On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 01:26PM +0200 Michael Wagner (wagner_m_bre...@web.de) > muttered: > > I edit my mails here in mutt with vim. When I reply to a message I don't > > want to delete the signature from the original poster by

Re: throw away signature in reply

Michael Wagner wrote: > Hello folks, > > I edit my mails here in mutt with vim. When I reply to a message I don't > want to delete the signature from the original poster by myself. Can this > be done in mutt or must it be done in vim. > > TIA Michael hi, you could defi

Re: throw away signature in reply

* On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 01:26PM +0200 Michael Wagner (wagner_m_bre...@web.de) muttered: > I edit my mails here in mutt with vim. When I reply to a message I don't > want to delete the signature from the original poster by myself. I do this in vim. " strip quoted signature autocmd Bu

throw away signature in reply

Hello folks, I edit my mails here in mutt with vim. When I reply to a message I don't want to delete the signature from the original poster by myself. Can this be done in mutt or must it be done in vim. TIA Michael -- BOFH excuse #338: old inkjet cartridges emanate barium-based fumes

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

le-smime only > applies when building without gpgme? It looks like with > --enable-gpgme, smime will be available via gpgme? Yes, if you turn on gpgme it will be available through that. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

On 2018-05-15 09:06, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > However, you could try set smime_verify_command="" (along with > smime_verify_opaque_command and smime_decrypt_command). Thanks, but unfortunately, this did not help. I found that set crypt_use_gpgme=no helps however (source:

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

ailable via gpgme? Thanks, -- Todd ~~ A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -- Douglas Adams signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

ot;" (along with smime_verify_opaque_command and smime_decrypt_command). Alternatively, you could set crypt_verify_sig=ask-yes, but that affects both PGP and S/MIME. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Option to disable S/MIME signature check?

aste (some seconds just to open one email which I will delete anyway) and then usually: "S/MIME signature could NOT be verified." I would like to disable this signature check altogether, because all my real contacts use either PGP or no signature at all. Is there an option in mutt to do t

Re: html signature?

Mar 2018, Scott Kostyshak wrote: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:02:03 From: Scott Kostyshak <skostys...@ufl.edu> To: mutt-users@mutt.org Subject: Re: html signature? On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 08:29:47AM +, Thomas Stein wrote: On 2018-03-08 08:47, Yubin Ruan wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:4

Re: html signature?

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 08:29:47AM +, Thomas Stein wrote: > On 2018-03-08 08:47, Yubin Ruan wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:40:26AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > I find that one reason that they seem particularly responsive to is > > > to point out that people with disabilities may

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-08 08:47, Yubin Ruan wrote: On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:40:26AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: I find that one reason that they seem particularly responsive to is to point out that people with disabilities may have trouble with HTML-only emails. Why? One example: Many visually

Re: html signature?

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:40:26AM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:21:24PM +, Matthias Apitz wrote: > > > Sorry, I meant: > > > > In case of real text/plain part (and not only 'click here to read this > > mail' or other suggestions the like) I do READ them. > >

Re: html signature?

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 10:21:24PM +, Matthias Apitz wrote: > Sorry, I meant: > > In case of real text/plain part (and not only 'click here to read this > mail' or other suggestions the like) I do READ them. Many of the HTML-only emails come from automated email systems. I usually respond

Re: html signature?

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:02:50PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2018-03-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:12PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> > >> I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs has > >> gotten so bad in past

Re: html signature?

El día Wednesday, March 07, 2018 a las 08:46:31PM +, Grant Edwards escribió: > >> Do you discard multipart/alternative where there's both text/plain and > >> text/html? That's what I'm leaning towards in the general case. > >> > >> I read this list using slrn via an NNTP server, so that's

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-07, Matthias Apitz wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 20:13:52 CET, Grant Edwards > wrote: >> On 2018-03-07, Matthias Apitz wrote: >>> >>> I'm used to receive my mails via fetchmail+procmail+mutt and >>> mails in HTML

Re: html signature?

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 20:13:52 CET, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2018-03-07, Matthias Apitz wrote: I'm used to receive my mails via fetchmail+procmail+mutt and mails in HTML are in best case silently ignored or end up in SPAM folders. You have

Re: html signature?

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018, at 14:02, Grant Edwards wrote: > text/plain (which usually assumes an 80-colum display) often renders > especially bad on narrow phone displays. This can be solved using format=flowed e-mail. I used it for a while (it came with a different set of problems) and it was

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-07, Matthias Apitz wrote: > On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 19:37:39 CET, Scott Kostyshak > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:12PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: >>> >>> I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs has >>>

Re: html signature?

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 19:37:39 CET, Scott Kostyshak wrote: On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:12PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs has gotten so bad in past few years, that I'm now reluctant to send mail in that

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-07, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:12PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >> I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs has >> gotten so bad in past few years, that I'm now reluctant to send mail >> in that format. > >

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-07 13:37, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs >> has gotten so bad in past few years, that I'm now reluctant to >> send mail in that format. > > What are the most common mistakes? The biggest I've seen is using proportional

Re: html signature?

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:06:12PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: > > I've noticed that the handling of text/plain by popular GUI MUAs has > gotten so bad in past few years, that I'm now reluctant to send mail > in that format. What are the most common mistakes? I wasn't aware of this situation,

Re: html signature?

On 2018-03-06, David Young <dyo...@pobox.com> wrote: > Does someone have a recipe for automatically adding an HTML signature > with embedded images to one's email? And is it possible to produce a > hybrid text/plain & text/html email, or do I have to go full HTML? I use

html signature?

Does someone have a recipe for automatically adding an HTML signature with embedded images to one's email? And is it possible to produce a hybrid text/plain & text/html email, or do I have to go full HTML? Seems like it *should* be possible with some MIME trickery involving Content-Disposi

Re: Your GPG signature is wrong

On 2017-05-16 09:09, Michelle Konzack wrote: > you should correct your GPG signature. IMO signing unencrypted email is of limited value. See the link below the fold. -- Please *no* private Cc: on mailing lists and newsgroups Personal signed mail: please _encrypt_ and sign Don't clear-t

Re: How to debug muttrc? (for signature)

* Peter Terpstra <peter.terpst...@gmail.com> [08-15-16 17:11]: > > In a reply you need this one set: > set sig_on_top > > Then it will be placed above the quoted text. > > Mutt will find it if this works too: > cd ~ && cat ~/.signature > > Kindly

Re: How to debug muttrc? (for signature)

In a reply you need this one set: set sig_on_top Then it will be placed above the quoted text. Mutt will find it if this works too: cd ~ && cat ~/.signature Kindly, Peter ~ pENG yU <pengyu...@gmail.com> [2016-08-14 10:40:24 -0500]: hI, i HAVE THE FOLLOWING LIN

How to debug muttrc? (for signature)

Hi, I have the following line in my muttrc. But no signature is generated in the email (I only tested mutt on the command line). set signature="~/.signature" Does anybody know how to debug muttrc to understand why no signature is included in the generated emails? -- Regards, Peng

Re: How to debug muttrc? (for signature)

BTW, I use the follow command to send the email. mutt -s 'my subject' pengyu...@gmail.com <<< my_body On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Peng Yu <pengyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I have the following line in my muttrc. But no signature is > generated in the emai

Re: BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016, Will Yardley wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:48:54AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: > > mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the > > openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone > > else reprodu

[SPAM?] Re: BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:48:54AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: > mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the > openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone > else reproduce the problem (the author says it verifies for him)? > If

BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone else reproduce the problem (the author says it verifies for him)? If the signature verifies for you, which mutt / gpg version do you use? (and any hints

Macro for viewing photos in pgp signature

the keyID from the message which I can feed to gpg? Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

New user tagline and signature help

Hello All, I'm a new mutt user and would like to use random taglines and signatures. I have worked out how to use send-hooks to change the signatures but would like some advice on what scripts/programs are best for creating the signatures. Are HTag or signify any good as I have found these via

Re: New user tagline and signature help

=- Chris Willard wrote on Mon 26.Nov'12 at 14:27:36 + -= I'm a new mutt user and would like to use random taglines and signatures. I have worked out how to use send-hooks to change the signatures but would like some advice on what scripts/programs are best for creating the signatures.

Re: New user tagline and signature help

Hello Rado, Thanks. I am currently testing it. Chris On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Rado Q wrote: [snip (8 lines)] 'fortune' -- Chris Willard ch...@meliser.co.uk

Signature position

or Open Source lists, where people mostly doesn't do top posting, but my main mailbox is related to my company's emails, where *nobody* knows what I talk about when I mention top posting, so I end up going to the bottom, copying the signature, go to top, paste it and then start writing my replies

Re: Signature position

the signature, go to top, paste it and then start writing my replies. Is there a way to define the position of the signature depending via a folder hook or similar command?. Yes it shouldn't be too difficult -- look at the $sig_on_top muttrc setting in muttrc(5) which you can configure in your

Re: Signature position

mention top posting, so I end up going to the bottom, copying the signature, go to top, paste it and then start writing my replies. Is there a way to define the position of the signature depending via a folder hook or similar command?. Yes it shouldn't be too difficult -- look

Re: Signature position

* Leonardo M. Ramé l.r...@griensu.com [11-05-12 08:09]: On 2012-11-05 12:42:23 +, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote: / Leonardo M. Ramé wrote on Mon 5.Nov'12 at 9:16:04 -0300 / Yes it shouldn't be too difficult -- look at the $sig_on_top muttrc setting in muttrc(5) which you can configure in

Re: Signature position

to my company's emails, where *nobody* knows what I talk about when I mention top posting, so I end up going to the bottom, copying the signature, go to top, paste it and then start writing my replies. Is there a way to define the position of the signature depending via a folder

Re: Signature position

people mostly doesn't do top posting, but my main mailbox is related to my company's emails, where *nobody* knows what I talk about when I mention top posting, so I end up going to the bottom, copying the signature, go to top, paste it and then start writing my replies

Re: Revisiting: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

I presume mutt needs multipart/signed. Sounds like a reasonable guess. I don't suppose you could send in a message that has been mangled this way? It would make it easier to test. I'm attaching a tgz archive with both versions, most of the headers stripped that are not relevant to this

Re: Revisiting: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

On Friday, 24 June 2011 at 00:00, Lars Hecking wrote: I am facing the same problem now, but may have a bit more information. Original message has a multipart/signed structure with a qp text and a signature part, all of which is wrapped into a multipart/mixed structure, presumably

Re: Revisiting: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

I am facing the same problem now, but may have a bit more information. Original message has a multipart/signed structure with a qp text and a signature part, all of which is wrapped into a multipart/mixed structure, presumably done by the list server for the purpose of adding a (text, 7

Revisiting: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

There was a thread on this mailing list back in March, http://marc.info/?l=mutt-usersm=130016436305546w=2 List: mutt-users Subject:application/pgp-signature is unsupported From: Joseph xxx () gmail ! com Date: 2011-03-15 4:44:57 which doesn't seem to have had

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

* On 15 Mar 2011, Joseph wrote: The addition in mailcap I just added in, but it makes no difference. I know before it used to ask me if I want to view the signature but some how it doesn't any more. What is the value of $pgp_verify_sig? What you describe sounds like it used to be ask-yes

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:31:42PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: If this verifies, I just figured it out. Still a bad signature here. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that your signature is 159 bits, and not 160? -- . o . o . o . . o o . . . o . . . o . o o o . o . o

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:48:26PM +0100, Remco Rijnders wrote: Possibly... but it consistently is with only Derek's emails. Your signature validates fine for example. Using mutt and gpg as available in / from Debian Squeeze. It’s not just you as I am seeing it too, with both gpg and gpg2

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:28:21AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:31:42PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: If this verifies, I just figured it out. Still a bad signature here. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that your signature is 159 bits, and not 160

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:25:47AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:28:21AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:31:42PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: If this verifies, I just figured it out. Still a bad signature here. I wonder if it has anything

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:34:37AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: Actually, do either of these last two messages (this one, and the one I'm replying to) verify correctly? I upgraded OpenSSL, and now I see this: $ gpg --list-packets foo4.txt :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 1C49C048DFBEAD02

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

* Derek Martin inva...@pizzashack.org [2011-03-15 09:42 -0500]: Actually, do either of these last two messages (this one, and the one I'm replying to) verify correctly? I upgraded OpenSSL, and now I see this: $ gpg --list-packets foo4.txt :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 1C49C048DFBEAD02

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

On 03/15/11 08:11, David Champion wrote: * On 15 Mar 2011, Joseph wrote: The addition in mailcap I just added in, but it makes no difference. I know before it used to ask me if I want to view the signature but some how it doesn't any more. What is the value of $pgp_verify_sig? What you

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0600, Joseph wrote: I tried all combinations: set crypt_verify_sig=ask-no set crypt_verify_sig=ask-yes set crypt_verify_sig=yes Makes no difference, I always get [-- application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --] Almost sounds

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

On 03/15/11 16:21, Derek Martin wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0600, Joseph wrote: I tried all combinations: set crypt_verify_sig=ask-no set crypt_verify_sig=ask-yes set crypt_verify_sig=yes Makes no difference, I always get [-- application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:11:06PM +0100, Remark Rijnders wrote: I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not. You're not the first to mention it to me, but I've also

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:11:41PM +0100, Richard wrote: On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:32:54AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: Something must be broken with your MUA or OpenPGP implementation. All of his signatures come in clean for me. I haven't seen a bad signature from him on this list

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

Quoth Derek Martin on Monday, 14 March 2011: On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 01:11:06PM +0100, Remark Rijnders wrote: I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not. You're

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

checking your email address against the one associated with the key? -- Zombywuf If you can read this you've gone too far. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

application/pgp-signature is unsupported

I'm missing a setting I think. When I open gpg signed message I get: application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view ... mutt pgp setting: # automatically verify the sign of a message when opened set crypt_verify_sig=yes mailcap application/pgp-signature; gpg %s What am I missing

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

* On 14 Mar 2011, Joseph wrote: I'm missing a setting I think. When I open gpg signed message I get: application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view ... mutt pgp setting: # automatically verify the sign of a message when opened set crypt_verify_sig=yes mailcap application

Re: application/pgp-signature is unsupported

On 03/15/11 00:23, David Champion wrote: * On 14 Mar 2011, Joseph wrote: I'm missing a setting I think. When I open gpg signed message I get: application/pgp-signature is unsupported (use 'v' to view ... mutt pgp setting: # automatically verify the sign of a message when opened set

[OT] GPG signature fails

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:36:36PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: snip Derek, I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not. I've tried to contact you about this outside

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On 03/13/2011 06:11 AM, Remco Rijnders wrote: Derek, I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not. I've tried to contact you about this outside this list, but you

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:32:54AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: On 03/13/2011 06:11 AM, Remco Rijnders wrote: Derek, I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware of this or not. I've

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:32:54AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: On 03/13/2011 06:11 AM, Remco Rijnders wrote: Derek, I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware

Re: [OT] GPG signature fails

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:32:54AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: On 03/13/2011 06:11 AM, Remco Rijnders wrote: Derek, I do appreciate you signing all your mails to this list, but each and every one of them shows up as a bad signature and I'm not sure whether you are aware

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >