On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 04:17:30PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> This patch came from a bug report on IRC from "ep". He noticed Mutt
> was hardcoding the micalg parameter to sha1, but his actual signature
> digest was using sha256. Because of this, Thunderbird was rejecting the
> signature.
Hi David,
David J. Weller-Fahy wrote:
> I have not tried to modify the default algorithm yet (no time today
> other than the initial patch and install), however I have used the patch
> to sign emails to myself and others and compared the claimed algorithm
> used. Without the patch today's tip sho
* Kevin J. McCarthy [2015-07-12 19:20 -0400]:
This patch came from a bug report on IRC from "ep". He noticed Mutt
was hardcoding the micalg parameter to sha1, but his actual signature
digest was using sha256. Because of this, Thunderbird was rejecting
the signature.
Ok.
Another possibility
Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Smime users, I could definitely use testing and feedback for this patch.
Bumping this thread. Any feedback on this from S/MIME users?
Thanks!
--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
http://www.8t8.us/configs/gpg-key-tr
Smime users, I could definitely use testing and feedback for this patch.
This patch came from a bug report on IRC from "ep". He noticed Mutt
was hardcoding the micalg parameter to sha1, but his actual signature
digest was using sha256. Because of this, Thunderbird was rejecting the
signature.
T
