Re: [SPAM?] Re: OT: Miro's PGP signature [Was: urlview not l…

Top Page
Attachments:
Message as email
+ (text/plain)
+ (application/pgp-signature)
Delete this message
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
archives.

> > > 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.