Um, what's going on here? I did *not* write this message which is
claiming to be from me. It is a copy of the message Sam Roberts sent
a couple days ago, which included in the body some unquoted headers
from my message. I believe the relevant header from this copy is:
Received: (from cyrus@localhost)
by paulbm.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22019;
Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:29:35 +0100
Whatever happened, please don't let it happen again.
Thanks,
Brian
On Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 07:29:35PM +0100, Brian D. Winters wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Sam Roberts wrote:
> > > I'd just like to have better control over when gpg tries to
> > > download keys, I wish it (or mutt) would ask "hey, do you want
> > > me to try and fetch this key from $keyserver?".
> >=20
> > Have you tried hitting ^C if the fetch is taking too long? The policy
> > when using gpg with mutt is effectively to assume yes, but allow an
> > interrupt if the answer is no.
>
> I'll try, but my concern is mostly getting tons of total
> stranger's keys on my public ring, I just don't want them,
> even if its fast.
>
> I think the problem (if you can call it one) is two-fold. Looking
> at gpg, it looks like the keyfetching is a little *too* transparent,
> there doesn't seem to be an option to --verify that says just use
> the local keychain, and also doesn't seem to be any hooks in the
> co-processing protocol such that gpg can say verification failed,
> do you want me to ask a keyserver for a key? And since it doesn't
> exist, mutt doesn't support this.
>
> Anyhow. Feature request.
>
> Sam
>
>
