From lurker-index@localhost Fri Sep 23 08:06:24 2016 Return-Path: Received: from lin16.mojsite.com (178.218.164.164:993) by g0n.xdwgrp with IMAP4-SSL; 23 Sep 2016 06:06:24 -0000 Envelope-to: miro.rovis@croatiafidelis.hr Delivery-date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 02:08:49 +0200 Received: from shtjevan.gbnet.net ([194.70.142.36]:39736 helo=gbnet.net) by lin16.mojsite.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1bnE2l-0006V6-W4 for miro.rovis@croatiafidelis.hr; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 02:08:44 +0200 Received: (qmail 4055 invoked by uid 611); 23 Sep 2016 00:05:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 4016 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2016 00:04:40 -0000 Received: from davin.gbnet.net (194.70.142.37) by shtjevan.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 23 Sep 2016 00:04:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 11374 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2016 23:53:35 -0000 Received: from mail-1.fido.net (84.246.192.5) by davin.gbnet.net with ESMTPS (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted); 22 Sep 2016 23:53:35 -0000 Received: from zardoc.esmtp.org ([70.36.157.240]) by mail-1.fido.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bnDo3-0004YZ-J3 for mutt-users@mutt.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:53:35 +0100 Received: from x2.esmtp.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by zardoc.esmtp.org (MeTA1-1.1.Alpha6.0) with ESMTPS (TLS=TLSv1.2, cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384, bits=256, verify=OK) id S000000000020EC4100; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:53:27 -0700 Received: (from ca@localhost) by x2.esmtp.org (8.14.6/8.12.10.Beta0/Submit) id u8MNrRZU021948 for mutt-users@mutt.org; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:53:27 -0700 From: Claus Assmann To: mutt-users@mutt.org Subject: Re: New thread about PGP sigs, part 1: Mutt disagrees with gpg Message-ID: <20160922235327.GA24981@x2.esmtp.org> Reply-To: mutt-users@mutt.org Mail-Followup-To: mutt-users@mutt.org References: <20160922214620.GA4059@matica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160922214620.GA4059@matica> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+24 (4de4b3635140) (2015-08-30) X-Filter-ID: s0sct1PQhAABKnZB5plbIZkPdBLoI4rpXXVukOUKyiwMVK2FFy+TmYeRnjy88I2+Wywi3RPeT3mN b5O6yuT+gUzCN0WZSl7cguNkLbh+Ux309qCWqNzocZwcIGp6lcxjZuB+2KJsO3GXVz1P8nrkgH/Y OtGqTc2vmMYcR172Ttilf9FHzkAWuSdBA6ZpRK+22EpgsNVL5BgQIkhMwiP8i3soo4z0v6CnuLbQ LRWIbE3MywBwksYlSxWf40Srx0PjCPDKTo6I/NU7fcDpocXu30WEJkIe7Jsq+y0ys/Cptw493SsS 4aMXJmiJ2G0eb5ahfy36Q0y4/ZIEpZ88QYwZ3dh9k/7+ezSIkKvuiCmTMO+fisJCU7/dqfyyzLJt i/St7g6G2ujZu0ohb8Ar3zd3CjHYLyvT6f3Q+BmtUtn7AtuSI+TcSDcfdFUrIheeFYvGqwDRBfGc CitSyoubPUw2INkjyzby4idWI9QDpJuVzLDOJQqAY3yHWg7XcwqMuTIFpl8rF453rlG/1n4zSXbJ j8Z5HU9lWzY9IEW/lO31ercxL7hrJSk60SF3F6RYOYr2 X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@master.fido.net X-FidoGuard-Class: ham X-FidoGuard-Evidence: Combined (0.15) X-Recommended-Action: accept List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users" Precedence: bulk Sender: owner-mutt-users@mutt.org X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-ID: 1bnE2l-0006V6-W4 X-PlusHosting-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.049, required 5, BAYES_00 -5.00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS 0.00, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ 0.75, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1.00, KAM_LINKBAIT 2.50, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.30) X-PlusHosting-MailScanner-From: owner-mutt-users-m24777@mutt.org X-Spam-Status: No X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: =?utf-8?q?INBOX?= On Thu, Sep 22, 2016, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > mutt gpg > http://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&m=147417425713497&q=raw BAD GOOD Verifies fine for me (in mutt). Now the question is: is it "just" your setup, or does it fail for others too? If so, what is common between the setups where the verification fails?