On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:22:39PM +1100, Malcolm V wrote: > On Mon, 2002-01-07 at 02:57, Eugene Teo wrote: > > You mean this? > > > > gpg: Good signature from "Malcolm Valentine (Spin) > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > > gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > > gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the > > owner. > > Yes, that is the one. Your key and another that has popped up on the > mailing list returns good, so it is no longer a matter of all other keys > returning bad. > > As for why some keys are consistently returning bad, I assume they are > being munged some point along the delivery chain...
I think there was a change recently in mutt's default gpg config (under debian at least). That could be part of the problem. Actually, I decided the other day to prettify my mutt/gpg integration and came up with the attached file. Note the pgp_verfiy_command, and the pgp_good_sign params (and the pretty colours). If you want to manually check fingerprints, get rid of the grep -v. Hope this is useful to someone. Pete
msg19266/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
