Am Donnerstag, den 24.11.2011, 17:28 +0100 schrieb Milan Crha: > On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 15:17 +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > > > What does it claim about the signature exactly, please? > > > > The box is red and reads »Invalid signature« (German: »Ungültige > > Signatur«).
> hmm, I see the texts are there even in 2.30.0. Mine works as expected. > (See below.) > > > > As an example, I see "Valid signature (David Woodhouse <...>)" on the > > > inner message, but "Signature exists, but need public key" on your > > > signature. I believe the later makes sense too, and can be probably the > > > reason for your error claim. When you click the icon on the left from > > > the signature claim inside the message, then you can see more details. > > > > The certificate for Intel(?) seems to be missing. > > > > Unterzeichner: <unknown> <<unknown>>: Signaturzertifikat nicht gefunden > > Signee(?): <unknown> <<unknown>>: signature certificate not found > > > > So I guess the error message should be improved by adding the reason to > > it: »Invalid signature (certificate not found)«. > > That is how it works for me, even on 3.2.2, which is the current stable. > Just get root certificates from http://cacert.org , install them into > certificate Authorities, edit the trust for it (you should tell > evolution/nss/nspr that your trust this certificate authority (CA)), and > then it'll work. > > I just tried, and when I do not trust to the CA, then I also get > "Invalid Signature", and the detailed information says: > Signer: David ... <...>: Signing certificate not trusted But I do get unknown entries like I pasted above and not your message. So something must in certificate handling must have been changed between 3.0.3 and 3.2.2. > Even it can seem strange on the first look, then it makes sense that > signatures done by certificates which are published by CA you do not > trust are treated as invalid. I looked at my certificates and I have the following certificate there. CAcert Class 3 Root DB:4C:42:69:07:3F:E9:C2:A3:7D:89:0A:5C:1B:18:C4:18:4E:2A:2D 73:3F:35:54:1D:44:C9:E9:5A:4A:EF:51:AD:03:06:B6 Additionally there is enough in the box to put that “detailed” information why the status is this or that there. It would improve the usability a lot. Thanks, Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
