On 10/23/03 3:00 PM +0100, Stewart V. Wright wrote: > > As a side issue, YOUR signature failed to verify on this message that > was sent _apparently_ from you... I was just as surprised by that as anyone. I think that had to do with my monkeying around with the mime type of the attachment to make it message/rfc822 in hopes that it would show up on the other end the same as I have it here. I think mutt or gpg managed to confuse itself doing something like recursive signatures. I am glad to hear that the mailman list signature verification problem isn't just here though. Hopefully this message won't look forged. > (Well, if we are going to sign things we should take a failed sig > seriously... ;-) ) True enough. -- Unix is a user friendly operating system. It just picks its friends more carefully than others. Thomas Stivers e-mail: stivers_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx gpg: 45CBBABD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature