On Wednesday, 16 February 2000 at 16:51, Adam Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2000 at 04:34:19PM -0500, Bennett Todd wrote:
> > 2000-02-16-16:22:11 Adam Sherman:
> >
> > I still don't know what's going wrong with your sigs, but I think
> > it's more basic than choice of algorithm. Leave that default. Your
> > problem seems to be that your sigs aren't getting encoded. I
> > attach the last message from you. Compare the way your sig looks
> > (like a little barf of binary bits) with e.g. my sigs, which are
> > ascii-armour encoded. Note that I'm letting mutt default in its
> > attaching of your message, so the whole attachment is getting
> > quoted-printable encoded, because mutt saw non-ASCII bits in it.
>
> I have --armor in the gpg sign command... Why is this happening?
>
> > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> > ˆ?¨ávB-· ¨™ø#¶Jǽ
Maybe it's your key. Have you successfully encoded/decoded anything
from the command line with gpg? From your last message I get the
following:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Wed Feb 16 17:36:38 2000) --]
gpg: standalone signature of class 0xff
gpg: Signature made Wed 31 Dec 1969 06:59:59 PM EST using ? key ID
FFFFFFFF
gpg: Can't check signature: unknown digest algorithm
[-- End of PGP output --]
which looks like gpg handling a lot of null data. If you can encode
from the command line, then maybe you've got a file-descriptor passing
problem in gpg.rc?
-Brendan
PGP signature
