Hi, * David T-G [04/22/02 22:35:19 CEST] wrote: > ...and then Rocco Rutte said... > % * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote: > % > ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % > % This only happens if a mail was former "text/plain" and is now > % > % "application/pgp; ...". To find if this - in my case - is the > % > % reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens. > % > % > Here's a test message back to you, then. Let's see if mutt says it's > % > verified. > % > % Of course it's verified. You have 'multipart/signed' which is > % a signal for procmail to not touch the mail. > ... and here's clue number two. Must have been way too early for me. > Sorry! > So *now* what do you get? GnuPG verifies it while mutt doesn't. As expected. So, I this is what I have so far: My mutt has problems with traditional pgp signatures created by the sender. Adjusting the content/type doesn't help, too. I'm interested in what others get to find out wether it's a general problem or something is wrong with my modified version of mutt. Cheers, Rocco.
msg27541/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
