Author: Derek Martin Date: To: Ben McGinnes CC: mutt-users Subject: Re: [SPAM?] Re: OT: Miro's PGP signature [Was: urlview not listing
the links right]
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:40:46PM +1000, Ben McGinnes wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 08:43:28AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Bach wrote:
> > Hello,
> > > Can anyone else verify Miro's signature? I'm getting "BAD signature"
> > > both in mutt, and when I extract the signed part and try to verify it
> > > with gpg from the command line.
> > >
> > > mutt 1.5.24, gpg 2.0.28, libgcrypt 1.7.3.
I have some vague recollection that GPG 2 versions might have some
difference that can trigger this... I was experiencing a problem in
the past where people told me some of my messages didn't verify, and
IIRC it had something to do with compatibility and GPG versions. I
just can't remember the details. However the conversation happened
on-list, so some enterprising person could likely find it in the
> > > This just happened to me on another mailing list too, so I strongly
> > > suspect it is me and not the senders.
> > The signature appears as BAD here too (with mutt-1.7.0-r4, gnupg-2.0.28,
> > libgcrypt 1.7.3).
> All four of Miro's sigs were fine for me. Yours, however, wasn't.
FWIW, for me, every message in this thread that carried a signature
verified correctly. I'm currently running mutt-1.5.21 with gpg-1.4.5.
I should really update those... =8^)
Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: