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
20 matches
Mail list logo
