On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:29:46 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Thomas Jost
>
> gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus"
> field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:29:46 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Thomas Jost
>
> gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus"
> field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:29:46 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Thomas Jost
>
> gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus"
> field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:29:46 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> From: Thomas Jost
>
> gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
> verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus"
> field
> in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding
From: Thomas Jost
gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus" field
in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
when using gmime-2.6 (2.4 is fine).
This bug
From: Thomas Jost
gmime-2.6 had a bug [1] which made it impossible to tell why a signature
verification failed when the signer key was unavailable (empty "sigstatus" field
in the JSON output). Since 00b5623d the corresponding test is marked as broken
when using gmime-2.6 (2.4 is fine).
This bug