On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 04:29:35AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: > 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 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. . . Okay, I hacked my gpg.mutt to always return true(1) [1], so even if pgp_good_sign only matters if the return value is zero (which AFAIK isn't the case, anyway, but reading the manual it may be interpretable that way, and I'm too lazy to look at the source), it should matter for me now, but it doesn't. I'd say a flea's in order right about now. . . - Dave [1] Don't you just love this? Now, UNIX can do everything Windows can, too :-) $ apropos false | grep 1 false (1) - do nothing, unsuccessfully -- 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:
pgpTho3pyI3cZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature