On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:09:37AM +0100, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 03:16:41AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > > 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 > [...] > > the beginning of a line being turned into ">From"), GPG will fail to > > verify it. > > But this specific one verifies as good. Especially, I cannot see any > difference in the GPG output from either of the mails. Curiosity overwhelming me, I decided to look at your mbox, 0430 and all. . . Sure enough, GPG thinks they're both good, but Mutt screws up interpreting GPG's response, even with my pgp_good_sign config. Man, that's annoying :-( > > 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. > > In my /etc/Muttrc, I found > set pgp_good_sign="^\\[GNUPG:\\] GOODSIG" Um, whatever ... beats me. . . > But even changing my pgp_good_sign to your version (translating from > "correct" to "Korrekte") does not help here. My pgp_good_sign doesn't work here, either, and mine I already know works for just about everything else I've ever come across. I don't know what's wrong, but GPG doesn't either, so I'm in good company. > I ask myself if I should file a flea? I don't. Mutt isn't interpreting pgp_good_sign here, AFAICT. I just looked at the docs, and I wonder whether pgp_good_sign is consulted only if the return value is zero. I'm gonna try tweaking my gpg.mutt script to always return true, and I'll followup here in a few minutes. I'll sleep later, I guess. . . - 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:
pgpO2B7vhGBVH.pgp
Description: PGP signature