Hi, * Thorsten Haude [02-07-11 23:25:41 +0200] wrote: > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-07-11 22:29]: > >* Thorsten Haude [02-07-11 22:10:53 +0200] wrote: > >> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-07-11 21:33]:
> A lot of the mails i have problems with are form David (no > GMX). I checked some others with the same problem, also no > GMX. To clear things up: GMX on the receiving and not on the sending side. > >> 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. > Yup, the quoting. I read mails by color, and David's are > uncolored but much more bumpy than the average tofu mail. You can easily add '%' to the list of known quoting character to make his mails colored, too. > >No. I just stoped mutt reporting about the verification. > >The GPG output I see is verbose enough, IMO. > I think we are talking about two different things here. Not really, see below. > What I see is this: > [-- PGP output follows (current time: Don 11 Jul 2002 23:06:04 CEST) --] > gpg: Warnung: Sensible Daten könnten auf Platte ausgelagert werden. > gpg: Unterschrift vom Son 09 Jun 2002 19:12:09 CEST, DSA Schlüssel ID 7B9F4700 > gpg: FALSCHE Unterschrift von "David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" > [-- Ende der PGP-Ausgabe --] Same here (in English, of course). After repairing what GMX broke I don't get any of these anymore. What I still have is that GPG says it's okay while mutt claims it isn't. I can't see how this could happen (according to the documented GPG return codes). It would be really interesting to compare the raw message of one you can't verify to one somebody else can. > So nothing about verbose GPG output. With 'verbose' I mean what we get. S/MIME produces only a one-liner. What would be verbose the way you think of? bye, Rocco
