On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:17:19PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote: > I don't recall the specifics, but I don't think anything > definite was agreed upon. I *thought* some people did in fact > blame mutt (more specifically, an old(er) option in people's > /etc/Muttrc or ~/.muttrc that needed updating). Again, this > was a little while back and I can't remember all the intimate > details... ;-)
There was one case where mutt was claiming that it was signing things with one algorithm while actually signing them with another. It came up on debian-vote during the last Project Leader elections (er ... [fx: hunts] ... see [1] and [2]), and might have propagated into discussions on -user. Is that what you're thinking of? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2001/debian-vote-200103/msg00105.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2001/debian-vote-200103/msg00154.html -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
