Thorsten, et al -- ...and then Thorsten Haude said... % % Hi,
Hello! % % * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 22:46]: % >* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote: % >> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]: % >> >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your % >> >$pgp_verify_command look like? % >> gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f % >Except '--quiet' the same here. % I doubt that this is the reason. % % >> As I said, it works on all messages except four of Davids. % >David mentioned mbox. Maybe the mailbox format has something % >to do with it? I don't know. % I couldn't find anything. Remember also that I have only problems with % David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck. Heh :-) I'm glad to see that others have problems elsewhere now, too! I've done some digging and still don't see the problem, though the "leading dots" issue is interesting. For instance, the reply I just sent to Rocco went out just fine and I have a copy in my =mutt-users fcc file. When I read that message, it says "good signature" but "could not be verified". Digging into the message in an editor, I see leading dots properly escaped. Using mutt to save the body and signature separately and then running $pgp_verify_command by hand on the pieces gives me, amazingly enough, a bad signature. I get the same verification error when I run the stock mutt-1.3.28. Just what does the verification do, anyway? What is mutt expecting from gpg, and what are the steps that gpg is taking? I always thought that it was checking the signature of the message to make sure the message hadn't been modified, but "good signature" with "could not be verified" seems to contradict that... HTH & TIA & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg27186/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
