On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:47:25 +0200 Sebastien Delafond wrote:
On May/02, Francesco Poli wrote:
Could it be a Sylpheed bug?
We've narrowed it down to an encoding issue: the original DSA email was
sent as ISO-8859-1, and mutt was able to verify it just fine; however,
on a system using UTF-8,
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes:
The fact is that I didn't perform any pasting: even running gpg
--verify directly on the message file fails (Sylpheed stores e-mail
messages in MH format, hence each message is on a separate file).
I received the message encoded as
Hi,
I received DSA-2040-1 and verified its GPG signature, as I always do.
I found out that I am unable to correctly verify the signature.
I got confirmation that I am not the only one who sees this issue with
DSA-2040-1: see the following thread on debian-security-trac...@l.d.o
for further
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 09:06:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi,
I received DSA-2040-1 and verified its GPG signature, as I always do.
I found out that I am unable to correctly verify the signature.
Works for me:
gpg: Signature made Sun 02 May 2010 02:55:15 PM CEST using DSA key ID 4E2ECA5A
On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:14:55 +0200 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 09:06:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi,
I received DSA-2040-1 and verified its GPG signature, as I always do.
I found out that I am unable to correctly verify the signature.
Works for me:
gpg: Signature
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 09:06:46PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi,
I received DSA-2040-1 and verified its GPG signature, as I always do.
I found out that I am unable to correctly verify the signature.
Works for me:
gpg: Signature made Sun 02 May 2010 02:55:15 PM CEST
On May/02, Francesco Poli wrote:
Could it be a Sylpheed bug?
We've narrowed it down to an encoding issue: the original DSA email was
sent as ISO-8859-1, and mutt was able to verify it just fine; however,
on a system using UTF-8, any kind of pasting of the original text will
produce a file that
7 matches
Mail list logo
