Hi, * Alain Bench [04/22/02 16:46:17 CEST] wrote: > On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
> > sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
> > content-type headers by formail.
> This could be that something was modified by proc/formail that is
> necessary to PGP verify... I propose something:
My procmail rules look like:
,----[ ~/.procmailrc ]-
| :0:
| * !^Content-Type: message/
| * !^Content-Type: multipart/
| * !^Content-Type: application/pgp
| {
| :0 fBw
| * ^-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
| * ^-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
| | formail -i "Content-Type: application/pgp; format=text; x-action=encrypt;"
| [...]
| }
`-
As you see, only the body is checked and the header is
modified. I answered David's mail because I think to have the
reason for the following behaviour:
1) GnuPG says the signature is good but
2) Mutt says it could not be verified
This only happens if a mail was former "text/plain" and is now
"application/pgp; ...". To find if this - in my case - is the
reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens.
Cheers, Rocco.
msg27528/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
