Hi,
* Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-07-11 23:41]:
>* 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 see. That's no problem here.
>> >> 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.
I know. What I don't know is why he is doing it in the first place,
esp. because otherwise he doesn't seem to try to be a pita, quite the
contrary.
>> 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).
So I seem to have the GMX problem without GMX. Could you tell me what
exactly I should be looking for in the mboxes? Could you send be your
solution?
What are the effects of the problem you still have? All I could see
here is that the status column is not changed from 's' to 'S'.
>It would be really interesting to compare the raw message of
>one you can't verify to one somebody else can.
What "raw message"?
>> 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?
We have two cases: One is verified by GPG but not by Mutt, the other
one is rejected by both GPG and Mutt. In the first case, you can
verify the signature yourself with the verbose output of GPG displayed
by Mutt, in the second case you can't.
Thanks for your time,
Thorsten
--
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall
one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
- Edmund Burke
