On Tue 2019-10-22 06:48:44 +0200, David Hebbeker wrote: > On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 20:26 +0200, David Hebbeker wrote: >> On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 14:19 +0200, Werner Koch wrote: >> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 22:23, David Hebbeker said: >> > > The manual [1] says that GnuPG can automatically retrieve keys >> > > for emails in the "u...@example.com" form. Does this exclude >> > > emails wrapped by angle brackets like "<u...@example.com>"? >> > >> > That is fine. >> >> I have experienced a behavior I could only explain with auto-key- >> locate being restricted to the pure form. > > I still have the problem described in my previous e-mail. Can it be > that this is faulty behavior of the GnuPG?
Yes, i can confirm the same misbehavior with GnuPG 2.2.17 (though i
don't think that edward...@fsf.org is actually correctly published via
WKD, so i tested with d...@fifthhorseman.net):
130 dkg@alice:/tmp/cdtemp.pipIPp$ gpg -e -r '<d...@fifthhorseman.net>' foo.txt
gpg: <d...@fifthhorseman.net>: skipped: No public key
gpg: foo.txt: encryption failed: No public key
2 dkg@alice:/tmp/cdtemp.pipIPp$ gpg -e -r 'd...@fifthhorseman.net' foo.txt
gpg: removing stale lockfile (created by 29177)
gpg: key F20691179038E5C6: "Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>" 1 new
user ID
gpg: key F20691179038E5C6: "Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>" 8 new
signatures
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: new user IDs: 1
gpg: new signatures: 8
gpg: no ultimately trusted keys found
gpg: B0A9B7B2D8D2CE47: There is no assurance this key belongs to the named user
sub cv25519/B0A9B7B2D8D2CE47 2019-01-19 Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<d...@fifthhorseman.net>
Primary key fingerprint: C4BC 2DDB 38CC E964 85EB E9C2 F206 9117 9038 E5C6
Subkey fingerprint: 88DE 0083 5288 C784 E73A C940 B0A9 B7B2 D8D2 CE47
It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named
in the user ID. If you *really* know what you are doing,
you may answer the next question with yes.
Use this key anyway? (y/N) y
0 dkg@alice:/tmp/cdtemp.pipIPp$
> I would create a bug report at [1] so it does not get lost. Does
> something speak against it?
Yes, in the future, please report this sort of bug directly so that we
can track the problem. i've opened https://dev.gnupg.org/T4726 now --
please add any additional information there!
Thanks for the report,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
