On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 05:00, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 00:06, Kilian CAVALOTTI wrote: > > I'll start to point these things out cause I'm wondering if it's certain > MUA combinations that always fail: > > gpg: armor header: Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.90 > gpg: Signature made Tue Dec 17 00:06:47 2002 CET using DSA key ID D657340C > gpg: armor header: Version: 5.0 > gpg: armor header: Comment: PGP Key Server 0.9.4+patch2+JHpatch2 > gpg: pub 1024D/D657340C 2001-10-15 Kilian CAVALOTTI (Kick) <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > gpg: key D657340C: public key "Kilian CAVALOTTI (Kick) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > imported > gpg: Total number processed: 1 > gpg: imported: 1 > gpg: BAD signature from "Kilian CAVALOTTI (Kick) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > I get this same error. According to the security.debian.org FAQ, evolution is known to mess up the signatures:
"Most likely some piece of mail software on your end slightly changes the message that breaks the signature. Make sure your software does not do any MIME encoding or decoding, or tab/space conversions. Known culprits are fetchmail (with the mimedecode option enabled), formail (from procmail 3.14 only) and evolution." http://www.debian.org/security/faq#signature -- Ryan Eby
