On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:55:42AM +0100, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:54:17PM -0500, Todd wrote: > > Yep, same thing. The message that displays an s has the proper > > PGP/MIME content-type of multipart/signed. The message that does not > > show an s has a content-type of multipart/mixed. > > Ah, now I see. This means that mutt cannot regonize by the headers that > this message is signed, but has to look at the body to find the > content-type, isn't it? > > So, it might be arguable if not showing the "s" in the pager is a bug or > not, as the message is not in the proper format. On the other hand, > after having checked that the signature is correct, mutt has to show a > big "S", doesn't it? So, IMHO, at least this is a bug. It know from > memory that it already occurred with 1.3.28i on Debian/Woody. In fact, > it was one of the annoyances of 1.3.28i I encountered and why I > upgraded. ;-) I haven't looked at your online mbox, but what I can say is that if you try to verify a message that was mangled by an MTA in transit (which tends to happen when automated processes muck with the MIME structure of a message - \n being converted to \r\n, for example, or "From" at the beginning of a line being turned into ">From"), GPG will fail to verify it. Another thing I've noticed is that GPG's exit code is totally useless in trying to figure out whether or not verification succeeded. I use pgp_good_sign="correct" (dunno what it is for English off-hand), and that's the only reliable method I've found. HTH, - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpxVsikFDQ7q.pgp
Description: PGP signature