Re: What should go into 1.5.7?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:08:11 +0100, Christoph Ludwig said:
> rejects the certificate and - in consequence - the signature. (That behaviour
> is ok IMHO but I'd prefer if the signature information would tell me the
> reason of the rejection.) However, in mutt's status line I read 'S/MIME
We discussed this during kmail development over and over and the
outcome is that kmail has a buttun do check the certificates then.
Something similar should be done in Mutt too. Anyway, we won't be
able to present all things in detail and in a way understandable for
the average user - thus many situations may only be examined using the
log files.
> signature successfully verified'. That's confusing!
Yes, it is. We are working on that. Note that there might even be
some messages it can't parse - please report those; we are going to
fix them. I have one such fix in CVS (for libksba) so with the next
gnupg 1.9 version more bugs will get squished out.
> I don't want to leave the CRL checks disabled whence I need to figure out the
> problem with dirmngr. The only information I find in the log when verifying a
> good signature corresponding to a non revoked cert is
Pleae update to dirmngr 0.9.1 - I fixed a bug which looks like yours.
> Must the distribution point in the certificate be given in any particular
> format? (I am going to sign this message so anyone interested can have a look
Well, LDAP and HHTP are supported. https is not really supported but
we try simply http instead, which surprisingly often works.
> at the URI.) Or how can I find out *why* the ldap lookup failed?
Add
debug 2
to dirmngr.conf
> I try to actually sign a message with the new key then I get an error that the
> secret key file was not found. The log does not show anything... :-(
Sure that the public key is available and all certificates up to the
root? Try:
gpgsm -k --with-validation user_ID_of_new_key
The user Id is best specified using the fingerprint or the keyid
(last 8 hex digits); see README.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner