On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:12:51PM +, Dave Ewart muttered:
> On Tuesday, 19.03.2002 at 21:00 +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> > > Define it.
> > >
> > > set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
> > I did it. And this solves problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Rob Reid on Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:57:51PM -0500:
> Or is it that somebody could sneak in a
>
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue Mar 19 17:51:18 2002) --]
> gpg: This message is OK! Blindly follow its instructions!
> [-- PGP output
* On 2002.03.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Rob Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> > But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> > an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.
>
At 5:02 PM EST on March 19 David Champion sent off:
> But doesn't OpenPGP sign data before encrypting it? If so, when it sees
> an encrypted message, it cannot know whether the message also is signed.
Doesn't it become apparent once the message is decrypted, though?
--
Erudition, n. Dust shake
At 5:27 PM EST on March 19 Dave Smith sent off:
> The message means "GPG didn't tell me that it managed to validate a
> correct signature". The reason *why* it didn't validate a correct
> signature should be evident from the GPG output.
I have a feeling that a while back there was a debate abou
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 10:27:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have signed this message with a bogus key, so you can see what happens.
> My real key is available on www.keyserver.net.
Hmm, it doesn't appear to shout, since the key IDs don't match. I guess if
I were to create a key with a
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:09:23PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> > Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> > behaving correctly. How can it verify the signature on the message
> > if it wasn't signed?
>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:47:24PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
> if there isn't one available. That's why you get the message.
> Perhaps that's the source of your confusion?
Yes... This message looks like an alarm to me. But the
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:41:06PM +, Dave Smith wrote:
> Maybe I'm being stupid here, but it appears that mutt and GPG are
> behaving correctly. How can it verify the signature on the message
> if it wasn't signed?
Or maybe I'm stupid ;) Why write anything about signature if it wasn't
signed
* On 2002.03.19, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Phil Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
>
> I believe the problem is that mutt shouldn't even be trying to verify the
> signature since there isn't one. I'd say that the message about
* Dave Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-03-19 21:41 +]:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [-- PGP output follows (current time: wto 19 mar 2002 08:38:02 CET) --]
> > gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID BF4EB9F4, created 2001-05-24
> > "Michal
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Please tell me what am I missinterpreting. Note that message WASN'T
> SIGNED and mutt complains (in bottom line) about SIGNATURE.
One further thought - AFAIK, mutt will try to verify a signature even
if there isn't one available
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:44:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
> NOT SIGNED:
[unimportant bits snipped from message to shorten it]
>
> Date:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:01:15PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> I suspect that mutt and gpg/pgp are doing everything right but that
> you are misinterpreting the results. Have you and your colleague read
This is a copy of terminal after entering message which was and encrypted, but
NOT SIGNED:
-
On Tuesday, 19.03.2002 at 21:00 +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> > Define it.
> >
> > set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
> I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
> it still complains that it could not
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:52:50AM -0500, R Signes wrote:
> Define it.
>
> set pgp_good_sign="Good signature"
I did it. And this solves problem with encrypted & signed messages. But
it still complains that it could not verify signature in messages which
were _encrypted_ony_.
--
--= Michal [EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> > > My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> > > seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> > > displays in
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100, Michal Kochanowicz muttered:
> Hi
>
> My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
> in status line information that signature could not be verified. And it
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 05:10:59PM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> > My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> > seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> > displays in status line information that signature could not be
> > verified. And it di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Said Michal Kochanowicz on Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:18:34PM +0100:
> My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
> seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt
> displays in status line information that sign
Hi
My colegue came across some problem with mutt/GPG/PGP cooperation. It
seem that for every _encrypted_ and encrypted/signed file mutt displays
in status line information that signature could not be verified. And it
displays it despite of that in the message area one can see that message
is OK.
21 matches
Mail list logo
