On 11/11/14 09:52, Werner Koch wrote: > I think this is what I will implement.
How would the warning be triggered? By the extension of the signature file or by existence of a file without the .sig extension, or even some other way? > That is an entire different thing and not a problem of gpg. If the warning is triggered by existence of a file without the .sig extension, it does suggest to me that people should not rely on the warning and thus always specify both the signature file and the signed file on the command line. Because they might infer by absence of the warning that the misnamed file has been verified, when the warning is absent because GnuPG never noticed the misnamed file. Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
