On 2002-01-09 18:01:58 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: >Patch worked fine to fix the behaviour I was seeing. I don't know >anything about the other reported anomolies, or if 's' should or >shouldn't become 'S' if the key isn't locally signed... I suspect >not, since I don't think mutt gets that much info from gpg about >the valid status.
That's correct. -- Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
msg22763/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
