Joe Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-01-06 at 06:38, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
> > signatures. To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
> > a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
>
>
On Sun, 2002-01-06 at 06:38, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
> signatures. To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
> a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
This is a known bug in Evolution: see
http://bugz
Hello!
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Oliver Elphick a écrit :
> > I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
> > signatures. To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
> > a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
> [sneep]
> >
Oliver Elphick a écrit :
> I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
> signatures. To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
> a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
[sneep]
> Do other mail clients give similar results?
I have noticed the sa
Hm, I've already deleted the messages in question, but I know I always get
good signatures from Anthony Towns and Branden Robinson. I also believe I got
a good signature from that Michael Meskes message as well. In fact, I don't
think I've seen a bad signature. This is mutt 1.3.25-1, gnupg 1.0.6
I've noticed that Evolution (1.0-4) is very prone to report bad
signatures. To start with I thought it was down to use by the sender of
a particular mailer, but I am beginning to doubt that.
I checked signatures of 3 signed messages on the debian-devel list that
I have read this morning. 2 are r
6 matches
Mail list logo
