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