Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [02-07-11 22:10:53 +0200] wrote:
> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-07-11 21:33]:
> >That was one of the first things I did when I discovered
> >those problems. Now that I know that a MTA in my mailpath
> >has a broken mbox parser I can verify a few of those bad
> >mails. A few which I can't verify remain.
> Could you tell more about this? How did you identify the
> broken MTA and what did you do to fix it?
Someone else found out that GMX escapes 'from' at the
beginning of a line to '>from' which was the reason why I
could not verify a few mails. It's a short sed/python/perl
solution to remove it again. As I said, a few still remain.
Since some people don't have problems at all, I don't
believe in a mutt problem anymore but in an MTA and MDA
issue (MTAs, fetchmail, procmail and the like). A start
would be to compare the raw messages affected with the
orignal by the author (those discussions should be moved off
list) and to collect some information about the mail
configurations involved.
> >David provided some other tips which didn't help for me.
> I sure tried to follow that thread but David's mails are
> much harder to read than the others.
Because of the quoting? ;-) His tips entirely dealed with
GPG. I can look it up and tell you the message-id.
> >So I just commented out the code producing the message in
> >mutt ("Signature could NOT be verified"). It's ugly but
> >it works for me.
> Errr.. That means you disabled verifying?
No. I just stoped mutt reporting about the verification. The
GPG output I see is verbose enough, IMO.
Someone could easily fool me with faked GPG reports this
way... I know.
bye, Rocco
