On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:49:35PM +0200, Orm Finnendahl wrote:
Am Montag, den 11. April 2022 um 10:33:57 Uhr (-0700) schrieb Kevin J. McCarthy:
That's the part that makes no sense to me. Simply unsetting and
resetting "sign" will just display the value of $pgp_sign_as. Did
something else h
Hi Kevin,
Am Montag, den 11. April 2022 um 10:33:57 Uhr (-0700) schrieb Kevin
J. McCarthy:
>
> That's the part that makes no sense to me. Simply unsetting and
> resetting "sign" will just display the value of $pgp_sign_as. Did
> something else happen in your workflow?
It's getting clearer than
Hi,
Am Montag, den 11. April 2022 um 12:38:59 Uhr (-0400) schrieb José
María Mateos:
> I have my GPG options here:
>
> $ cat .gnupg/gpg.conf
> default-key 263080EC
> encrypt-to 263080EC
Unfortunately this didn't work here (even after restart). I get the
same error in mutt.
--
Orm
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 06:09:01PM +0200, Orm Finnendahl wrote:
when replying to a signed Email, my response Mail is automatically set
to be signed by me.
Are you doing that via $crypt_replysign or via some other method? Are
you replying to a PGP-signed message to an S/MIME message? The beha
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 06:09:01PM +0200, Orm Finnendahl wrote:
How do I set the "" value that it uses my HexKey?
I have my GPG options here:
$ cat .gnupg/gpg.conf
default-key 263080EC
encrypt-to 263080EC
There I declare what's my default key and I also tell it to always
encrypt to me too if
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 07:03:59AM +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote:
I receive mails from some friend with the structure shown below,
private data removed or overwritten. How mutt could check automagically
the signed content or is there something missing in the mail header?
The message is inline si
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:28:02PM +0200, martin boeder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using mutt since a long time ago and started to use pgp
> now. It works fine for me, except one thing: If I get an
> message with an attachment mutt shows me the attachment inline
> only. Like this:
>
> [snip]
Hello,
I n
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:28:39PM +0100, Peter P. wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone has found a way to automatically enable PGP
> signing for certain recipients only, perhaps through some rule-based
> scheme?
Look at send-hook and crypt-hook, along with $crypt_autoencrypt.
Only tricky thing is
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:10:38PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:54:19PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
For example, this post to gnupg-users absolutely IS a traditional
in-line PGP message:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gnupg/users/52282?do=post_view_threaded#52
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:54:19PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> This absolutely makes sense -- every bit of what you describe.
>
> Mutt does not save the state of a mailbox once it leaves that
> mailbox... so if it has to parse the message to determine that it is
> signed when you first see a me
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:54:19PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote:
> Mutt does not save the state of a mailbox once it leaves that
> mailbox...
Well, if you have header cache turned on, it does save *some* state...
but as we've already established, traditional PGP messages do not
contain any PGP-relat
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:41:09PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:27:38PM -0500, Ed Blackman wrote:
> > There are two kinds of PGP encrypted or signed messages: PGP/MIME
> > and traditional inline. But only PGP/MIME can be detected in the
> > headers of the message. My g
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:27:38PM -0500, Ed Blackman wrote:
> There are two kinds of PGP encrypted or signed messages: PGP/MIME
> and traditional inline. But only PGP/MIME can be detected in the
> headers of the message. My guess is that mutt shows the flags for
> the more common PGP/MIME messag
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 04:27:38PM -0500, Ed Blackman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 01:23:06PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> >However, after viewing a message that is signed, when going back to the
> >index, the 's' flag will show, even though it didn't show before reading
> >the mail. PGP/GPG i
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 01:23:06PM -0700, Aaron Toponce wrote:
I'm struggling with this status flag in the message index. Most
mailboxes show the 's', 'S' and 'P' flags appropriately. However, there
are two mailboxes that don't. One is a local LUG mailing list, the other
is the GnuPG Users mailin
also sprach Kyle Wheeler [2009.12.05.0146 +0100]:
> >I haven't checked recently either; when I get some time, I'll fire up
> >the ole XP virtual machine to check it out.
>
> Unfortunately, all I have is MS Office 2000, which is too old to work
> with GPG4Win.
I tried it, and GpgOL does indeed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wednesday, December 2 at 12:07 PM, quoth Kyle Wheeler:
>On Monday, November 30 at 08:04 PM, quoth martin f krafft:
>> This is going off-topic, but I'd appreciate a response. GpgOL might
>> be able to decipher PGP/MIME, which would be a grand ste
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Monday, November 30 at 08:04 PM, quoth martin f krafft:
> This is going off-topic, but I'd appreciate a response. GpgOL might
> be able to decipher PGP/MIME, which would be a grand step,
Apparently it can.
> but last I checked, it couldn't crea
Thanks Marianne..
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Marianne Promberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, 29 July 2008, 21:20 (UTC-0700), Ravi Uday wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe I am too lazy to google this stuff
>
> Apparently.
>
>> but what are PGP messages.. I
>> mean I see emails w
Hi,
On Tuesday, 29 July 2008, 21:20 (UTC-0700), Ravi Uday wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe I am too lazy to google this stuff
Apparently.
> but what are PGP messages.. I
> mean I see emails with
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> ..
> ..
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> etc so wh
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Johan Almqvist wrote:
> > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If I send someone a message, and I've got his key, Gnus doesn't
> > > suggest to encrypt the message.
> This was about Gnus, but can mutt do this?
i use this script:
gpgers.sh
> yes - someone ought to tell the creators or outlook about RFC2015..
It would help if they cared about interoperating...
> so i think you should upgrade. ;-)
apparently ;-)
I'm actually using check-traditional now, so I guess I'll break down
and send it also...
> In addition to what Sven ha
I use the mailcrypt library from within Emacs to clear sign a regular
text message for outlook folks. I also try and remind them when I can
about using a more standards compliant email client :->.
It has come to my attention...
...that Alan Batie said on Monday, Aug 19 2002:
> I was wondering if
Alan --
...and then Alan Batie said...
%
% I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
In addition to what Sven has provided, note that $p_c_t requires an
additional patch up through v1.4 to really work seamlessly with Outhouse;
in the 1.5 tree that patch has been merged i
* Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-08-19 20:12]:
> I was wondering if something can't be done to fix the interaction
> between PGP/MIME and Outlook et al that refuse to show signed messages.
yes - someone ought to tell the creators or outlook about RFC2015..
> They apparently know enough MIM
Elimar --
...and then Elimar Riesebieter said...
%
% On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 the mental interface of Michael Tatge told:
%
% > Elimar Riesebieter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
% > > I've configured my mutt for using gnupg. But when I define a PGP
% > > getkeys command, the display gets corrupted?
.
Hi,
* Michael Berklmeir [02-07-29 00:21:28 +0200] wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > source $path_to_gpg.rc
> >
> > Done.
> Thanks. It worked just out of the box ;-)
That's what useful defaults are for... ;-)
bye, Rocco
* Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-28 18:56]:
> > * Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-28 15:54]:
> > > From: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Reply-To: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Message-ID: <20020728155436.GA1989@local>
> > > User-Age
Hi Rocco!
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> source $path_to_gpg.rc
>
> Done.
Thanks. It worked just out of the box ;-)
Mike
--
Your lucky number is 3552664958674928. Watch for it everywhere.
msg29923/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 the mental interface of Sven Guckes told:
> * Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-28 15:54]:
> > From: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: PGP getkeys
> > Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:54:36 +0200
> >
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 the mental interface of Michael Tatge told:
> Elimar Riesebieter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> > I've configured my mutt for using gnupg. But when I define a PGP
> > getkeys command, the display gets corrupted?
> >
> > What did I wrong?
>
> Don't use getkeys. Set a keyserv
Sven Guckes wrote:
> what exactly did you do at all? and why is your Reply-To: line a copy
> of the From: line? and would you consider upgrading to mutt 1.4
> before and fixing the "local" in your MID to a FQDN?
And do you really need to be such an asshole all the time?
While you often have g
Hi,
* Michael Berklmeir [02-07-28 18:36:22 +0200] wrote:
> I want do same. Is it possible, you post your PGP config
> values of your mutt-config? I'm not sure i set all values
> right. I only set the
> pgp_sign_command="gpg -sa"
> set pgp_encrypt_sign_command="gpg -e" .
The official mutt releas
Elimar Riesebieter schrieb am Sonntag, den 28. Juli 2002:
Hi Elimar,
> I've configured my mutt for using gnupg.
I want do same. Is it possible, you post your PGP config values of
your mutt-config? I'm not sure i set all values right. I only set the
pgp_sign_command="gpg -sa"
set pgp_encrypt_si
* Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-28 15:54]:
> From: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Elimar Riesebieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: PGP getkeys
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:54:36 +0200
> Message-ID: <20020728155436.GA1989@local>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
>
> I
Elimar Riesebieter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> I've configured my mutt for using gnupg. But when I define a PGP
> getkeys command, the display gets corrupted?
>
> What did I wrong?
Don't use getkeys. Set a keyserver in the gnupg options file and put
this line therem, too.
keyserver-options a
jbw --
...and then jbw said...
%
% On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:48:13AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
% [snip]
...
% > Take a look at my tests and see if any of them give you the same problem
...
% I was able to decrypt & read all of the emails you sent except for
% the signed+pasted-enc
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 09:48:13AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
[snip]
> From my [completely amateur] review of the file and comparison with my
> own tests, it looks as though your correspondent encrypted a file, pasted
> the encrypted text into a message, and then in-line signed that m
jbw --
...and then jbw said...
%
% On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 05:39:56AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
% [clip]
...
% > You should check the exit code of gpg. If it's nonzero and you haven't
% > specifically set mutt to recognize "good signature text" then mutt will
% > see it as a failu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* jbw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-17 16:12]:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:35:29PM -0700, Michael Maibaum spewed into the ether:
> > FWIW, I don't find the key...
> >
> > Michael
> >
> I just resent to keyserver wwwkeys.nl.pgp.net. Try it now.
Muc
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:35:29PM -0700, Michael Maibaum spewed into the ether:
> * jbw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-17 14:54]:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 05:39:56AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
> > [clip]
> > > % Problem...
> > > %
> > > % When I receive mime encoded msgs I can't re
* jbw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-07-17 14:54]:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 05:39:56AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
> [clip]
> > % Problem...
> > %
> > % When I receive mime encoded msgs I can't read it and mutt reports that
> > % the signature couldn't be verified even though the screen o
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 05:39:56AM -0500, David T-G spewed into the ether:
[clip]
> % Problem...
> %
> % When I receive mime encoded msgs I can't read it and mutt reports that
> % the signature couldn't be verified even though the screen output
> % reports a good signature. And I can't read the m
jbw --
...and then jbw said...
%
% I'm using mutt 1.4 and gpg 1.07.
Sounds good.
%
% Until I upgraded to mutt 1.4 I couldn't read encrypted messages that
Well, encrypted messages sent in in-line style, anyway.
% were sent to me. I had to save the whole msg as a text file and decrypt it
%
Hello Aaron,
On Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 5:38:20 PM -0500, Aaron Schrab wrote:
[quoted-unreadable encoding]
>> some dots *not* beginning a line were rejected at beginning of next
>> one, because of QP soft cutting long lines... And Mutt didn't notice
>> it should have encoded it.
> Yeah, I
Mike --
...and then mike ledoux said...
%
% -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
% Hash: SHA1
%
% On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:34:04PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
% > AFAICT, be it good or bad overall, there is no way to have gpg *not* read
% > the default pubring and secring files; that works for me,
Hello, all --
...and then Alain Bench said...
%
...
% > According to the manual, gpg has to return an exit value of non zero
% > making mutt reporting a bad signature allthough it's good.
%
% Exactly: Non zero GPG exit code *or* $pgp_good_sign not matching GPG
% output, lead Mutt to say "PG
Hi,
* Alain Bench [05/03/02 03:13:53 CEST] wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 12:23:08 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> >> set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from"
> > That seems to work.
Doesn't. I don't what I tested, but the problem remained.
> So your problem is solved?
Yes.
Hello Rocco,
On Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 12:23:08 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
>> set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from"
> That seems to work.
So your problem is solved? Dan: yours too? Thorsten: this should
solve partly your problem, for half the IDs you gave, but you have
anot
* Rahul Rekapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-22 19:59]:
> I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the
> PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine,
> asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline.
> Is there something that I h
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/23/02 16:55:18 CEST] wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
> > the signature could not be verified.
> -1) set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from" (or your
Hello Rocco,
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 9:47:28 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> When I look at mails which verify okay with gpg, mutt sometimes says
> the signature could not be verified.
-1) set pgp_good_sign="^gpg: Good signature from" (or your real
localized GnuPG output string)
-2) If
Hello David,
On Monday, April 22, 2002 at 3:35:19 PM -0500, David Thorburn-Gundlach wrote:
> and then Rocco Rutte said...
> and here's clue number two.
Note here the 4 dots, when you sent only 3...
> So *now* what do you get?
Just to confuse things up, I could not ver
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 11:32:15PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> I'm interested in what others get to find out wether it's a
> general problem or something is wrong with my modified version
> of mutt.
nope, happens to me too - only slightly modified version - vvv.nntp and
compressed patch, is all,
Hi,
* David T-G [04/22/02 22:35:19 CEST] wrote:
> ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
> % > ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % > % This only happens if a mail was former "text/plain" and is now
> % > % "application/pgp; ...". To find if this - in my c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rocco, et al --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
% > Rocck --
%
% Creative, I must say. ;-)
Whoops. That is clue number one ...
%
% > ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% > % Th
Rahul --
...and then Rahul Rekapalli said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
% I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the
% PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine,
Of course. mutt sucks less than anything else!
% asked me why my PGP signature was attach
begin Rahul Rekapalli quotation:
> I enabled PGP signing in mutt, when i view the mail, mutt shows the
> PGP signature inline, but a couple of friends of mine who use Pine,
> asked me why my PGP signature was attached rather than being inline.
> Is there something that I have configured wrong? Pl
Hi,
* David T-G [04/22/02 18:44:05 CEST] wrote:
> Rocck --
Creative, I must say. ;-)
> ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % This only happens if a mail was former "text/plain" and is now
> % "application/pgp; ...". To find if this - in my case - is the
> % reason, I'll remove those rules and se
Rocck --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
...
% This only happens if a mail was former "text/plain" and is now
% "application/pgp; ...". To find if this - in my case - is the
% reason, I'll remove those rules and see what happens.
Here's a test message back to you, then. Le
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/22/02 16:46:17 CEST] wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
> > sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
> > content-type headers by formail.
>
Hello Rocco and ALL,
On Saturday, April 20, 2002 at 2:37:21 PM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> I spent some time on testing. In my case, all signatures GPG can
> sucessfully verify while mutt saying it can't have rewritten
> content-type headers by formail.
This could be that something was mod
Hi,
* David T-G [04/15/02 14:17:40 CEST] wrote:
> I always thought that it
> was checking the signature of the message to make sure the message hadn't
> been modified, but "good signature" with "could not be verified" seems to
> contradict that...
I spent some time on testing. In my case, a
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-04-16 08:32 (CEST)]
> While that sounds like a good idea in general, I don't think it's the
> real problem. I get my mail delivered right here and I couldn't verify
> the sig on this message, Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> ironically enough.
Signed Mon
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Tatge said...
%
% David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
% > % David I know you use several keyrings. If I uncomment all keyring lines
% > % in my options file I can verify any mail just fine.
% > % Without those lines the gpg output shows that the sigs are
David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> % David I know you use several keyrings. If I uncomment all keyring lines
> % in my options file I can verify any mail just fine.
> % Without those lines the gpg output shows that the sigs are verified, but
> % mutt says they can not be verified.
> Intere
Michael, et al --
...and then Michael Tatge said...
%
% David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
...
% >
% > I don't know that I'd say that. I cannot verify my own messages in my
% > own =mutt-users fcc folder.
...
% > [zero] [9:39am] ~> gpg --verify < /tmp/m
% > gpg: no signed data
% >
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin David T-G quotation:
% >
% > I tried this method, using my editor to write everything from the last
% > ^From_ line down to the bottom of the folder out to a file, but couldn't
% > get gpg to do anything with it:
%
% Argh. I forgot PGP/MIM
begin David T-G quotation:
>
> I tried this method, using my editor to write everything from the last
> ^From_ line down to the bottom of the folder out to a file, but couldn't
> get gpg to do anything with it:
Argh. I forgot PGP/MIME. That method I said will only work with inline
sigs.
Scor
David T-G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered:
> Shawn, et al --
>
> ...and then Shawn McMahon said...
> %
> % Well, it's not unusual to have an occasional unverifiable mail, but for
> % it to be so consistent for you, it almost has to be somewhere in your
> % MTA path, not your MUA, since nobody else
Shawn, et al --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
% >
% > It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
% > version, but I cannot verify David's mail.
%
% Well, it's not unusual to have an occasional unverifiable mail, but for
% it to b
Hi,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-16 15:30]:
>Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
>problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
I couldn't verify *any* of the mails I got from you today.
Thorsten
--
Nichts ist schwerer und erfordert mehr
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
>
> * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-16 15:30]:
> >Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
> >problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
> It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
> ver
Shawn --
...and then Shawn McMahon said...
%
% begin David T-G quotation:
% >
% > Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless someone (I volunteer)
% > sets up a temporary mutt-and-gpg-verification-problems@ list to get to
% > the bottom of it and keep me in the loop. I certainly wan
Moin,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-16 15:30]:
>Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
>problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
It's not Fetchmail. I use 5.9.11 now, which seems to be the latest
version, but I cannot verify David's mail.
begin David T-G quotation:
>
> Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless someone (I volunteer)
> sets up a temporary mutt-and-gpg-verification-problems@ list to get to
> the bottom of it and keep me in the loop. I certainly want to get it
> resolved.
When it is resolved, we want it
Thorsten, et al --
...and then Thorsten Haude said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 22:01]:
% >begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
% >> Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142]
% >> by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0)
% >> for
Will --
...and then Will Yardley said...
%
% perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
Maybe, but maybe not. I don't think we've pinned it down to a not-mutt
problem. Frankly I don't know what the heck is going on.
Personally I hope it doesn't leave mutt-users unless
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/15/02 21:31:06 CEST] wrote:
> On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> > So a message would have to be encoded correctly before handing it over
> > to an SMTP delivery process and should be deliverable without any
> > modifications.
> BTW yo
Hi,
* Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 22:01]:
>begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
>> Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142]
>> by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0)
>> for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST)
>That's a r
begin Will Yardley quotation:
>
> > And I cannot verify this one.
>
> perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
Is this list no longer for solving Mutt-related problems?
Or is it just that you think no one else will possibly ever have this
problem, and only the people
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
>
> Received: from pop.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.142]
> by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.8.0)
> for yooden@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:00:25 +0200 (CEST)
That's a really old fetchmail, with a lot of known bugs, including
pro
Hello Rocco,
On Monday, April 15, 2002 at 1:15:41 AM +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hey, that's one of mine and guess what... It verifies okay here.
Yes, okay here too now I've corrected effect of my broken deliver.
And It should be also verified by anybody else without
Thorsten Haude wrote:
> * Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 20:19]:
> >I cannot verify the first
> And I cannot verify this one.
perhaps it's time (past time???) to take this discussion off list?
--
Will Yardley
input: william < @ hq . newdream . net . >
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 20:19]:
>I cannot verify the first
And I cannot verify this one.
Thorsten
--
Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich.
- Grundgesetz, Artikel 10, Abs. 1
msg27201/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP sign
Hi,
* Shawn McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 02:15]:
>Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what
>path it's taking to get to you, perhaps there's a broken MTA involved.
Two mails from David, I cannot verify the first, I can verify the
second. I rot13'ed the lead
Hi,
* David T-G [04/15/02 14:06:08 CEST] wrote:
> ...and then Rocco Rutte said...
> % * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
> % > gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f
> %
> % Except '--quiet' the same here.
> I don't have --quiet and have --output but am otherwise
Thorsten, et al --
...and then Thorsten Haude said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 22:46]:
% >* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
% >> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]:
% >> >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
%
Rocco, et al --
...and then Rocco Rutte said...
%
% Hi,
Hello!
%
% * Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
% > * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]:
% > >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
% > >$pgp_verify_command look like?
% > gpg --no-verbose --qu
begin Thorsten Haude quotation:
>
> * Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 00:38]:
> Add this one to the list I just can't verify. I cannot find any
> suspicious dots here.
Can you quote the headers from one you can't verify? I want to see what
path it's taking to get to you, perhaps the
Hi,
* Alain Bench [04/14/02 21:15:34 CEST] wrote:
> Hello Thorsten,
> On Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 1:12:18 PM +0200, Thorsten Haude wrote:
> > I cannot verify the following IDs (only checked April):
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Strange:
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/15/02 00:53:17 CEST] wrote:
> * Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 00:41]:
> >I cannot verify (April only):
> With neither 1.5.0 nor 1.3.27 (except for S/MIME of course).
Exactly. But only checking David's.
> --
> Alles ist richtig, auch das Gegenteil.
>
Hi,
* Aaron Schrab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 00:38]:
Add this one to the list I just can't verify. I cannot find any
suspicious dots here.
Thorsten
--
Death to all fanatics!
msg27167/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-15 00:41]:
>I cannot verify (April only):
With neither 1.5.0 nor 1.3.27 (except for S/MIME of course).
Thorsten
--
Alles ist richtig, auch das Gegenteil.
- Kurt Tucholsky
msg27166/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 23:35]:
>> Remember also that I have only problems with
>> David's mail. He's industrious, so it may be luck.
>Hmm, so let's wait if David (or someone else) has some
>pointers or ideas.
David is not the culprit, see my other mail.
>I can't verify
At 21:15 +0200 14 Apr 2002, Alain Bench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But in other cases, he has not done it. In the last 3 mails (the
> first mail is not QP encoded, so it's normal) some dots *not* beginning
> a line were rejected at beginning of next one, because of QP soft
> cutting long lin
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 23:06:03 CEST] wrote:
> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 22:46]:
> >* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
> >> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]:
> >> >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
> >> >$pgp_verify_command
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 23:06]:
I cannot verify this one. I can still verify my other mails.
Thorsten
--
I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit.
- Mel Brooks
msg27158/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
* Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 22:46]:
>* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
>> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]:
>> >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
>> >$pgp_verify_command look like?
>> gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --
Hi,
* Thorsten Haude [04/14/02 21:41:00 CEST] wrote:
> * Rocco Rutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [02-04-14 15:13]:
> >Hmm, checked them and both verify. What does your
> >$pgp_verify_command look like?
> gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f
Except '--quiet' the same here.
> As I sai
1 - 100 of 486 matches
Mail list logo
