Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Thursday 08 Jan 2009, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:38:41PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 Jan 2009, Simon Huggins wrote: > > > I have the same results as Chris Smith but with gpg 1.4.6. > > > It's very odd that different people see the good/bad results inverted. > > > > Simon's email cam up as "Not enough information" on my system. > > That's a fairly useless report ;) Indeed. > It doesn't strike me as a gpg error message. Perhaps you don't > automatically import keys into gpg and you don't have my key. Automatic import is turned on but evidently did not work. A manual import fixed the problem. -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK Men who have excessive faith in their theories or ideas are not only ill prepared for making discoveries, they also make poor observations. -- Claude Bernard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 08:38:41PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Wednesday 07 Jan 2009, Simon Huggins wrote: > > I have the same results as Chris Smith but with gpg 1.4.6. > > It's very odd that different people see the good/bad results inverted. > Simon's email cam up as "Not enough information" on my system. That's a fairly useless report ;) It doesn't strike me as a gpg error message. Perhaps you don't automatically import keys into gpg and you don't have my key. -- --( "Everyone who is alive, please raise your hand. )-- Simon ( See, told ya," - Rimmer. ) Nomis Htag.pl 0.0.24 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Wednesday 07 Jan 2009, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:07:30PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:04:05PM +, Chris Smith wrote: > > > Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > >>Test message. > > > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > > And this one is bad for me. (Ubuntu Intrepid, gpg 1.4.9) > > > >This is good on gpg 1.4.9 (my desktop), but bad on gpg 1.4.6 (my > > server). > > > >Adam, Andy -- what versions of gpg are you using? > > I have the same results as Chris Smith but with gpg 1.4.6. > It's very odd that different people see the good/bad results inverted. Simon's email cam up as "Not enough information" on my system. -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK The Politician is an acrobat: he keeps his balance by saying the opposite of what he does. -- Maurice Barres signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
> > Send both myself and Adam a mail offlist (possibly copying the list > as well if people aren't getting too irritated by this by now)? > Irrespective of whether people are irritated or not, isn't this potentially a massively serious problem? James -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Hi Hugo, On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:44:09PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:33:10PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:13:15PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > >Test message. > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > Both bad for me. So perhaps it is happening at mailman.lug.org.uk. > >Possibly that's additional breakage, although I don't think so. > There's definitely something going on with different versions of GPG, > though. Send both myself and Adam a mail offlist (possibly copying the list as well if people aren't getting too irritated by this by now)? Cheers, Andy signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:33:10PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:13:15PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > > >Test message. > > > > Looks good. > > Both bad for me. So perhaps it is happening at mailman.lug.org.uk. Possibly that's additional breakage, although I don't think so. There's definitely something going on with different versions of GPG, though. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Why play all the notes, when you need only play --- the most beautiful? signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:07:30PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: >Adam, Andy -- what versions of gpg are you using? 1.4.6. Debian Etch package. Cheers, Andy signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:13:45PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > >Test message. > > BAD Good for me! :) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Hi, On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:13:15PM +, Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > >Test message. > > Looks good. Both bad for me. So perhaps it is happening at mailman.lug.org.uk. Cheers, Andy signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:07:30PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:04:05PM +, Chris Smith wrote: > > Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > > >>Test message. > > > Looks good. > > And this one is bad for me. (Ubuntu Intrepid, gpg 1.4.9) >This is good on gpg 1.4.9 (my desktop), but bad on gpg 1.4.6 (my > server). >Adam, Andy -- what versions of gpg are you using? I have the same results as Chris Smith but with gpg 1.4.6. It's very odd that different people see the good/bad results inverted. -- Simon Huggins \ the seat on my toilet has more uptime \ http://www.earth.li/~huggie/htag.pl 0.0.24 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:31:31PM +, Jacqui Caren wrote: > Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > >>I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and > >> changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail > >> checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on > >> the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what > >> it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. > > > > This message now looks good. > > Locale LC_*? Identical on both machines. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- The makers of Steinway pianos would like me to tell you that --- this is a Bechstein. signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: >>I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and >> changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail >> checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on >> the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what >> it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. > > This message now looks good. Locale LC_*? -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:02:33 + Chris Smith wrote: Hello Chris, > Interesting. This one's good for me. Bad here, sadly. Several of Hugo's other recent messages have had good signatures though. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" The stakes were high but the danger low Charade - Skids signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:22:56 + Hugo Mills wrote: Hello Hugo, >On investigation, it seems that all of the bad sigs (and some good > ones) were sent from my server, which is what I use most of the time. The bad sigs I've seen from other people are sometimes caused by an overly long comment (or similar) in the signature block, which gets wrapped by mailing list software. Looking at your messages, that clearly isn't the case. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" Go away, come back, go away, come back Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely) - P!nk signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:04:05PM +, Chris Smith wrote: > Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > >>Test message. > > > > Looks good. > > And this one is bad for me. (Ubuntu Intrepid, gpg 1.4.9) This is good on gpg 1.4.9 (my desktop), but bad on gpg 1.4.6 (my server). Adam, Andy -- what versions of gpg are you using? Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 4: Future Perfect --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: >>Test message. > > Looks good. And this one is bad for me. (Ubuntu Intrepid, gpg 1.4.9) Chris -- Chris Smith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Dr Adam Trickett wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: >>Test message. > > BAD Interesting. This one's good for me. Chris -- Chris Smith signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: >Test message. BAD -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back when it begins to rain. -- Robert Frost signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: >Test message. Looks good. -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all. -- John Maynard Keynes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tuesday 06 Jan 2009, Hugo Mills wrote: > >I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and > changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail > checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on > the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what > it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. This message now looks good. -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -- anon signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Test message. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 2: Common Sense --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Test message. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 2: Common Sense --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:36:18PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Hugo, > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 05:21:46PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > >I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and > > changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail > > checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on > > the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what > > it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. > > Conversely, the signature on this mail is bad now, for me. I've found that the signature flips state depending on which machine I'm on. Signatures made on a particular machine read as good on that machine, and bad on the other. (This is my server, vlad, vs my desktop, selene). I'm going to send two identical mails to the list, one from each box. Maybe that will help figure it out. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Great oxymorons of the world, no. 2: Common Sense --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
Hi Hugo, On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 05:21:46PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: >I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and > changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail > checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on > the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what > it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. Conversely, the signature on this mail is bad now, for me. Cheers, Andy signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 03:47:25PM +, Dr Adam J Trickett wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 at 03:22:56PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > > > > H.. :-( > > > >On investigation, it seems that all of the bad sigs (and some good > > ones) were sent from my server, which is what I use most of the time. > > I haven't yet found a bad signature on mails sent from my desktop > > machine. However, both machines have exactly the same mutt *and* gpg > > configuration -- they share a home directory, and /etc/Muttrc is > > identical on both machines. > > I did wonder, it seemed odd that your signatures would be bad. > I've been meaning to mention it for ages but kept forgetting. > > I notice other people on various lists have problem signatures now > and then and I do try and let people know when I can. I've upgraded mutt and gpg on my server to etch-backports, and changed the /etc/Muttrc to the packaged version, and my last mail checks out OK with a good signature on the desktop box, but fails on the server. I think the next job is to strace mutt and find out what it's doing when it checks the GPG signatures. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- What do you give the man who has everything? -- Penicillin is --- a good start... signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 at 03:22:56PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > > > > H.. :-( > >On investigation, it seems that all of the bad sigs (and some good > ones) were sent from my server, which is what I use most of the time. > I haven't yet found a bad signature on mails sent from my desktop > machine. However, both machines have exactly the same mutt *and* gpg > configuration -- they share a home directory, and /etc/Muttrc is > identical on both machines. I did wonder, it seemed odd that your signatures would be bad. I've been meaning to mention it for ages but kept forgetting. I notice other people on various lists have problem signatures now and then and I do try and let people know when I can. -- Adam Trickett Overton, HANTS, UK Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice. -- Richard Bos's corollary -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
Re: [Hampshire] Bad GPG signatures
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:54:44PM +, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:52:45 + > Hugo Mills wrote: > > Hello Hugo, > > >OK, that's *really* weird. My copy-to-self of that mail is bad. > > And just to prove me a liar, the sig on that message validated okay. > > H.. :-( On investigation, it seems that all of the bad sigs (and some good ones) were sent from my server, which is what I use most of the time. I haven't yet found a bad signature on mails sent from my desktop machine. However, both machines have exactly the same mutt *and* gpg configuration -- they share a home directory, and /etc/Muttrc is identical on both machines. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: h...@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Charting the inexorable advance of Western syphilisation... --- signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk --
