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
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.
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
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:
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:
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:
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:54:44PM +, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:52:45 +
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk 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.
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
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
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
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
--
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
--
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
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
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 cj...@zepler.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface:
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 cj...@zepler.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Please post to:
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
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:22:56 +
Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk 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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
