On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 07:39:45AM +0200, Sirius via Mutt-users wrote: > In days of yore (Sat, 13 Apr 2024), Laura Orvokki Kursula via Mutt-users thus > quoth: > > Hello all > > > > I have encountered a strange problem setting up mutt: when I attach a > > signature > > block to my e-mail using `$signature', my PGP signature is, according to > > mutt, > > invalid. E-mails without signature blocks yield valid PGP signatures. If I > > go > > back and replace the automatic signature with something else, the PGP > > signature > > checks out too. Is this a known issue? Is there something I can do about it? > > That is odd. I do not see that at all (just tested, mutt-2.2.13 on > Debian). For a gpg signature to be invalid, what is signed has to have > changed in some way. > > You are doing effectively this in muttrc: > set signature="~/.mutt/signature" > yes? And there is nothing in the signature that could be altered after it > is pulled into the message and the GnuPG signature is applied, right?
After some more testing, I figured out this issue had nothing at all to do with signature blocks, or mutt. The culprit was the silly `X-Clacks-Overhead' header I had configured postfix to add ages ago. How I came to think it had a correlation with whether or not I use a `$signature' remains a mystery; my bet is on a lack of sleep. Thank you for your time. > My questions would be: > - mutt gnupg configuration, is it changed in any way from distribution > default? > - version of mutt and what distribution/version are you running? > > My suggestion would be to run mutt with -d1 or -d2 and look at the debug > output (crank the debug level higher if need be, it goes up to five) to > work out what happens. > > -- > Kind regards, > > /S -- Laura
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
