<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: mutt claiming that gpg signatures aren't verified



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