On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> As the subject says, the signature flag is not showing in the index.
> Well, that's not entirely true. It will show after I view the signed
> message in the pager then go back to the index tree.
[…]
> Anyone else who's a mutt user exp
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:59:49AM +, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:08:33PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> > As the subject says, the signature flag is not showing in the index.
> > Well, that's not entirely true. It will show after I view the signed
> > message in the pager the
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 01:59:11PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
> After a little investigation I believe signed mails that have had
> signatures from mailing lists attached are not decoded until you view
> the message. I’m guessing that Mutt only checks for Content-Type
> multipart/signed, but these m
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 08:29:33AM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 01:59:11PM +, Simon Ward wrote:
> > After a little investigation I believe signed mails that have had
> > signatures from mailing lists attached are not decoded until you view
> > the message. I’m guessing
On 12/23/10 1:26 PM, smu johnson wrote:
> I was wondering what anyone thought of including which block cipher
> mode gpg uses in the -v[erbose] mode.
OpenPGP specifies a kind of messed-up and strange variant of CFB. Don't
get me wrong, it /is/ a CFB mode, it's just messed-up and strange.
Cryptana
Daiki Ueno writes:
> BTW, I'm wondering if there is any reason why the validity field (Field
> 2 of --with-colons output) is not used for secret keys. It might be
> useful for the libraries which call gpg internally (epg.el I mean :) to
> check if a key is usable.
Actually, it looks that GPGME
