Re: OT: Miro's PGP signature [Was: urlview not listing the l…

Top Page
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
Delete this message
Author: Ken Moffat
Date:  
To: mutt-users
Subject: Re: OT: Miro's PGP signature [Was: urlview not listing the links right]
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:20:12PM +0200, Miroslav Rovis wrote:
> On 160918-13:18+0200, Richard Z wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:15:04PM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> > > * On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 11:21PM -0700 Ian Zimmerman (itz@???) muttered:
> > > > Can anyone else verify Miro's signature?
> > >
> > > [-- Begin signature information --]
> > > Good signature from: Miroslav Rovis (consacrated to Heart of Jesus)
> > > <miro.rovis@???>
> > >             created: Sun 18 Sep 2016 01:25:09 CEST
> > > WARNING: We have NO indication whether the key belongs to the person
> Pretty strange, if true. It's always used to be:

>
> There is no indication that this key really belongs to the owner
>
> That it would turn BAD is hard to conceive for me. I'm far from an
> expert, but I do use my GnuPG correctly.
>


I gave up using pgp in my muttrc when my upstream was down last
week, catching up on list mail when every signed mail made a failed
attempt to check the server was tedious.

And so far, I haven't bothered to reinstate it, because so many
posts get shown as a bad signature. One of the lists I read is
lkml, and one of the developers there signs almost all of his posts
(except the "added to some tree" messages he sends). On any given
day there will be several posts from him, and usually one or two are
reported as bad, and the rest as good.

When I first installed GnuPG I was using v1 and my impression was
that verification worked. But for quite some time, possibly after
v2 came into use, it has been "variable". At first I thought that
moving to v2 might fix it, but it has been the same story with 2 and
now 2.1.

ĸen
-- 
`I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good
for them.'     -- Small Gods