Hi, * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote: > Rocck --
Creative, I must say. ;-) > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... > % 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. > Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's > verified. Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. To make my point once more: I use procmail to rewrite a content type of text/plain of pgp signed messages to make mutt recognize it. When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says the signature could not be verified. This seems to be case if the content type was rewritten. If it is left untouched, mutt always says it was okay. In my archive every mail is untouched. So I looked at one of them (with content type text/plain) and used check-traditional- pgp. Result: gpg suceeds, mutt fails. I can't explain this one. If there isn't much interest in the case I'll just ignore mutt's messages and only rely on gpg. Cheers, Rocco.
msg27535/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
