Re: BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016, Will Yardley wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:48:54AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: > > mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the > > openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone > > else reproduce the problem (the author says it

syscall(getrandom) not supported

When sending encrypted mail from mutt using gpg I do get the following error message from gpg: gpg: DBG: syscall(getrandom) not supported; errno = 38 The mail is sent nevertheless, but I am wondering why the error message is there. A quick online search did not bring up something and I was

[SPAM?] Re: BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:48:54AM -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: > mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the > openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone > else reproduce the problem (the author says it verifies for him)? > If the signature verifies for

BAD signature: mutt, signer, something else?

mutt/gpg gives me a "BAD signature" for some recent mails on the openssl users list, one example message is attached. Can someone else reproduce the problem (the author says it verifies for him)? If the signature verifies for you, which mutt / gpg version do you use? (and any hints what might be

Re: [SPAM?] mutt deletes temporary HTML file before I can view it

** Xu Wang [2016-06-22 10:07]: > Hello, > > I would like to be able to do > 'v' and then 'm' to open an HTML email in my browser. I can succeed in > this regard by having the following entry in ~/.mailcap: > text/html; chromium-browser %s; description=HTML Text; > >