This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
algo RIPEMD160.
Till now it has not been possible to verify this message with the Bat!
when this digest algo had been used.
--
Henk M. de Bruijn
__
The Bat!
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, at 02:36:56 [GMT +0200] (which was 2:36 where I
live) I myself wrote:
> This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
> algo RIPEMD160.
> Till now it has not been possible to verify this message with the Bat!
> when this digest algo had been used.
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu 21-Jul-05 7:36pm -0500, Henk M. de Bruijn wrote:
> This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
> algo RIPEMD160.
>
> Till now it has not been possible to verify this message with the Bat!
> when this digest algo had
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, at 19:42:57 [GMT -0500] (which was 2:42 where I
live) Bill Mccarthy wrote:
> On Thu 21-Jul-05 7:36pm -0500, Henk M. de Bruijn wrote:
>> This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
>> algo RIPEMD160.
>>
>> Till now it has not been possible to verify
Henk M. de Bruijn schrieb:
> This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
> algo RIPEMD160.
>
> Till now it has not been possible to verify this message with the Bat!
> when this digest algo had been used.
Verifies good with Thunderbird/Enigmail, but The Bat! states a
si
Hallo Henk,
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:36:56 +0200GMT (22-7-2005, 2:36 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
HDB> This message has been signed pgp/mime. In this case I have used digest
HDB> algo RIPEMD160.
HDB> Till now it has not been possible to verify this message with the Bat!
HDB> when this digest a
On Fri 22-Jul-05 1:05am -0500, Roelof Otten wrote:
> Verifies fine with TB 3.51.8
What LDAP server are you using? I have very little luck
verifying with pgp.surfnet.nl. I am beginning to wonder if
there may be a bug in the GnuPG software.
For your signature I get:
gpg: Signature made 07/22/05
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri 22-Jul-05 1:05am -0500, Roelof Otten wrote:
> Verifies fine with TB 3.51.8
One follow up question - when I sign with GnuPG and PGP/MIME
turned on, the PGP/MIME does not appear to be working. Are
you or anyone else experiencing this?
- --
Bes
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, at 08:05:41 [GMT +0200] (which was 8:05 where I
live) Roelof Otten wrote:
> Verifies fine with TB 3.51.8 and PGP 8.1
That's interesting! Testing PGP 8.1
BTW I know that other MUA's do not have any problem with RIPEMD160
--
Henk M. de Bruijn
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, at 13:52:11 [GMT +0200] (which was 13:52 where I
live) I myself wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, at 08:05:41 [GMT +0200] (which was 8:05 where I
> live) Roelof Otten wrote:
>> Verifies fine with TB 3.51.8 and PGP 8.1
> That's interesting! Testing PGP 8.1
> BTW I know that othe
Friday, July 22, 2005, 2:05:02 AM, (Internet Time - @336) you wrote:
Hello Bill,
BM> What LDAP server are you using? I have very little luck
BM> verifying with pgp.surfnet.nl. I am beginning to wonder if
BM> there may be a bug in the GnuPG software.
I have been using pgp.mit.edu to find about
11 matches
Mail list logo