On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 07:28:21AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:31:42PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > If this verifies, I just figured it out. > > Still a bad signature here. I wonder if it has anything to do with the > fact that your signature is 159 bits, and not 160?
Yeah, I checked, and the signatures from that message and the previous
one looked the same, cryptographically speaking.
Here's what I see:
$ gpg --list-packets foo2.txt
:signature packet: algo 17, keyid 1C49C048DFBEAD02
version 3, created 1300141736, md5len 5, sigclass 01
digest algo 2, begin of digest c9 92
data: [159 bits]
data: [160 bits]
Odd.
--
Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpuFNjCQt6CN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
